Anarcho-syndicalism

Great Debates
81

This particular hypothetical, I came up with myself.

If you mean reading suggestions about coordination problems in general, Scott Alexander’s Meditations on Moloch (long) is a good discussion from the tech-salvation perspective. I don’t think all of his examples are quite apposite (“capitalism” is good or bad depending on how it’s defined), but the essential importance of the idea is there.

Yes. Exactly.

You underestimate your own success in a World Of You. Your ability to precisely predict what yourselves would do, and to implicitly trust those predictions, is RIDICULOUSLY valuable. On every level, in every way. World-Of-You global GDP (Gross World Product) would be at least double our regular Earth’s within ten years.

Look at a Prisoner’s Dilemma-style situation, except with a psychopath playing against a perfect copy of himself. Here’s the key point of the situation: Each version cares only for himself, not for his copy. He’d be perfectly indifferent watching his copy burn to cinders. Yet he knows that his copy is a perfect copy. Each copy cares for only his own sentence, not the other’s sentence, but they understand each other clearly. What do they do?

The Nash equilibrium here is that they each rat the other out. Both confess. This does worse for both of them than if they both stay quiet, but if one stays quiet, the other has incentive to rat. But if one is tempted to rat, then what about the other who is just like him?

This is a Newcomb-style problem.

I’d say that anyone who suggests the “rational” action for the psychopath to take is to rat himselves out is operating with a philosophically naive decision theory. The ability to predict the specific thought processes of the other to such an astounding degree should, at least for an intelligent person, change the calculus of the situation. Even for psychopaths. A person who can’t coordinate with a perfect copy isn’t merely lacking in empathy. He’s just fucking stupid. And frankly, I think this is a common thread for real-world coordination problems. We are, as a species, not quite smart enough to think ourselves out of these problems. Frankly I doubt we ever will be.

We suffer, not just from a lack of empathy but from a lack of imagination.

82

If you define any group capable of organized action to be a state, then that’s obvious. However, anarchists don’t; otherwise, they’d have to equally admit that their system would be incapable of roads or hospitals or anything else beyond what a single person or small family could accomplish. As a matter of fact, I’m more in line with your implied definition, but not to the benefit of anarchism: Anarchism is Majoritarianism in a funny mask, and suffers from all the same problems, including being unable to stop a majority from being horribly discriminatory against minorities.

As far as I’m concerned, any Anarchist system is founded on a lie, that lie being the notion that individual rights will be preserved without a rule-bound authority capable of exercising coercion. I maintain that Anarchism would have such a coercive authority, but one which is utterly uninterested in rules and, therefore, extremely dangerous to any individual the majority decided was bad. In short, Anarchism is Warlordism, and trying to convince me I’m wrong because someone defined Anarchism differently won’t work.

83

Yup. I figured my answer implied as much, but apparently not clearly enough.

Besides, the question itself is begging the question : prevent what genocide ? The hell ae you even talking about, **Derleth **? Is your question :

  • how does an anarchist society prevent itself from committing a genocide (which is a non-starter, as an anarchist society by definition rejects any individual proposing violence or deprivations of liberty, to say nothing of organizing violence, mass incarcerations etc…) ; or

  • how does an anarchist society prevents itself from being genocided ? (by force of arms if need be, how else ?) ; or

  • how does it prevent a third party from genociding another, different third party ? Which isn’t a fair question at all, esp. considering the track record of capitalist hierarchies in that regard. Anarchist communities can’t disprove Russell’s teapot, either, the useless gits. I do however expect anarchists to be a lot more welcoming of people fleeing *from *genocide than capitalist hierarchies… just as I expect any anarchist would volunteer to defend or protect the genocided, as happens in every genocide, at various levels and to various extents (hint : hiding Jews in the attic, in defiance of the law and under pain of death, based on nothing more than your humanity and convictions and without anything to gain from it in return ? That’s *hella *praxis.)

84

Ah, yes, those brutal, genociding warlords of Freetown Christiania…:rolleyes:

85

One neighborhood in one city in one First World country is not an Anarchist polity.

Microstates aren’t real. Microstates inside real, functioning states are especially not real. You might be able to make half of a case for Sealand, but a “state” which is ruled by the laws of a real state isn’t even trying.

I am a Realist. I adhere to Realism. Therefore, I am not impressed by technicalities or argument-by-definition.

Also, you still haven’t answered my question.

86

WADR, this kind of misses the point. What structures are in place in an anarchist society to make the decision to “reject” those who want to employ violence stick, in any meaningful way?

Read the story of David and Nabal in the OT. David has been driven out by King Saul into the wilderness, outside the power of the established hierarchy because Saul thinks David is trying to take over. It’s not exactly an anarchy, but it is an area outside the purview of the kingship. And David sets up as something in that murky area between a shadow police force, and a protection racket. That is, according to the story, he does actually offer protection for the locals against bandits and Philistines and so forth. But at sheep shearing time, he shows up at the local rich guy’s place with a not very thinly veiled demand for some of the goodies. And notice how David reacts when Nabal, the Bad Guy, sends his messengers off with contempt instead of tribute. David gathers his followers together and prepares to attack Nabal and grab what he wants by force. This is not really voluntary in a meaningful sense - give David what he asks, or else.

Now, of course, Abigail, Nabal’s wife, who obviously knows which side her bread is buttered on, immediately gathers lots of goodies and runs out to David before he can attack and hands it all over with a pretty apology for her husband’s dumbness in offending someone who has the power to make him sorry. And then Nabal dies, David marries Abigail, and that is the start of David setting himself up as a semi-independent king over the region.

The area is not really an anarchy, but they cannot call on the state to rescue them. If King Saul had any control over the area, David wouldn’t be hiding out there. But there is no hierarchy of force they can call on - David holds the monopoly on force, whether the locals like it, or not. David being the One True King, they like it, but that’s not the point.

Groups need protectors, from threats within and threats without. That’s why things like feudalism develop. The lord, with his armed warriors, both protects and exploits his subjects, and is in turn protected and exploited by those above him.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and a power vacuum is no different. Somehow or other, someone will fill the vacuum and set up the hierarchy. Ideally, it’s something like a republic, where people get to pick, and have overarching control, over those exercising power. But the vacuum is going to be filled one way or other.

Regards,
Shodan

87

Ross Thomas on anarchy, from Ah, Treachery!: “Sometimes, just to get a rise, I’d argue that officers and noncoms should be elected. Nearly everyone else argued that that’d lead to anarchy. When I asked them to define anarchy, they’d usually come up with a pretty fair definition of democracy.”

88

Not seeing your point. Anarchy and democracy aren’t the same thing, even if democracy were instituted in the military.

Regards,
Shodan

89

Cripes. Almost an answer to a question posed in the OP!

Are we going to get this thread moved to IMHO now :slight_smile:

90

This is the part I don’t understand and has not really been answered. Let’s snap our fingers and we have an anarchist society. I like this new found freedom, but it turns out that I’m a pretty bad guy. I run around raping, robbing, and murdering people.

It is said that an anarchist society will not tolerate this, so there must be someone out there with more legal power than me to stop me from doing this and incarcerate me. Then those people will pass laws: no rape, no murder, no robbery, and keep adding to the list as new problems arise.

And when it is asked who makes these rules, it is said that “everyone” makes the rules.

So, again, how is this any different than the democracy we have now?

91

It is not different, in the sense that murder, rapine, etc., are not tolerated. It is not because there are laws against it that murder is bad, more like the other way around.

92

Almost everyone with very few exceptions would agree with that now. I’m sure there is not a single poster on this board who would answer the question, “Why is murder bad?” with “Because my state has seen fit to criminalize it.” It is a malum in se crime, abhorred by every civilization (at least in theory).

But there are many crimes that are bad solely because they are illegal. However that doesn’t make them tyrannical or something that needs fixed. Driving on the right side of the road, for example. There is nothing immoral or harmful about driving on the left side of the road; many countries do it. But we drive on the right as an agreed upon rule for traffic safety.

In this anarchist society could I drive on whichever side of the road I pleased?

93

The question is, how does an anarchy “not tolerate” murder?

Everyone in the anarchy thinks murder is bad. Except me and my friends. So we get together and organize ourselves to grab what we want. That is, we create a hierarchy of power, with ourselves at the top. Then the anarchy creates a bigger hierarchy of power, which is better organized, and they stop me and my friends from grabbing what they want. Then either the hierarchy dissolves, in which case I and my friends start grabbing again, or it remains in place and then you have a police force. Which, in order to be organized, has to have a chain of command to coordinate its activities. That’s not very anarchical.

And, of course, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? See above, where David the semi-benevolent protector becomes King David, first in Hebron and then over the rest of Israel.

Regards,
Shodan

94

The current mainstream forms of government evolved from primitive ones, anarchism was one of those primitive forms and it was abandoned as societies become larger and more complex. There’s nothing “progressive” about advocating for anarchism, we’ve been there, done that, and we abandoned when it became not fit for purpose somewhere north of the border between the Neolithic and Bronze Age.

95

No, it definitely wasn’t.

96

:rolleyes:

FYI, the rise of Man predates the emergence of the State.

97

Sure. And since humans first appeared, they have been part of social groups, and those groups were always formed of smaller hierarchies where someone or some group was in charge. But you are correct that semi-formal structures like tribes, once they organized or were organized into larger units like city-states, it was never anything resembling anarchy.

The tipping point seems to be at the point where you don’t automatically know everyone in the larger group. At that point, family and/or social ties have to give way to a hierarchy. And everyone in the group has to accept the hierarchy, or the hierarchy, in order to survive, creates or recognizes the dominant class and the police or military to defend against those inside the group who refuse to recognize the hierarchy, and those outside the group who want to move in and either rob, or take over.

That’s probably the primary argument against anarchy - it has never worked. It may have been tried several times, but it doesn’t last, and cannot.

It doesn’t matter if the authority comes from a watery tart chucking swords around, or a mandate of the masses in a group meeting every second Thursday, or whatever. Sooner or later, we see the violence inherent in the system. Some one is going to be oppressed - it’s just a question of who.

Regards,
Shodan

98

So if what you guys are saying is true, then there’s hope yet:

For egalitarian anarchism to function in practice, all we really need to do is reform the essence of human nature, so that even the most ruthless, intractably competitive individuals among us will behave in a peaceful, cooperative manner at all times, correct?

What kind of pessimist wouldn’t be in favor of that? :wink:

99

Same old horseshit disguised as arguments that I’ve encountered before.

OK, people participate in the current arrangement — showing up to do work, taking orders from people—because as individuals they get something out of the arrangement, and because it is stable and they can rely on it functioning. They work all week long and all the next week and all this on the promise that when that’s over and done with, they’ll get these markers called “currency” that stand as tokens that other folks in other settings will honor and trade for goods and services. That and an assortment of other promises and assumptions. Think of it as a game. We trust that the game works, that it is mostly played fairly.

We don’t do that because of our shining wonderful character traits. There’s a strong streak of self-interest involved there.

So if, hypothetically speaking — and don’t fight the fucking hypothetical here — there were a similar structure intact, a structure of stable behavior in which a person could count on the food and the services being there and it was understood by all the participants that you get to have that by doing the part that is expected of you, that you provide effort or labor or otherwise participate and do your share — then, no, it doesn’t require of you that you have shining wonderful character traits in order that you not, instead, dash in and try to grab all the potatoes and steak and shiny trinkets for yourself. It doesn’t require of you that you be a moral saint in order that you don’t sit on your lazy butt and refuse to be a participant. Anarchy doesn’t mean “absence of structure”. It means “absence of a structure that relies on a hierarchy of differential authority, of people over other people”. The hypothetical here is such a structure could exist, providing communication, establishing reliability and predictability.

People keep coming back to coercion. Oh, you need coercion because if bad shit didn’t happen to those who violate the social contract, people would violate the social contract, expectations be damned. Yeah that’s probably true. But bad shit can happen to you without a vertical hierarchy. If eight of us go on a fishing boat as buddies with none of us the captain or the boss, but you act like an utter asshole, the other seven of us will start ignoring what you want. We won’t pitch in and help you. You’ll acquire a reputation. You know that, so it’s not just that you like us and that we’re your buddies, you also have common sense.

Is it possible to have a complex communications structure that would make reputation attach to a person when the operation is scaled up to an immense number of people, not eight folks on a fishing trip? I don’t know. I think it is, but I could be wrong… but now we’re no longer discussing the need for anyone to be a freaking saint.

So quit already with throwing that particular red herring into the discussion.

100

Q: How does an anarchist society build an airplane?
A: An anarchist society, by definition, simply rejects the notion of gravity and the idea that nature should have differential authority over mankind.
Q: But…
A: Don’t fight the hypothetical!