What is "Power" and what is anarchism and is it even possible.

[Ella S.]

I'm sorry to hear that you had to grow up in a society that made you form such a negative Menschenbild.
I was lucky enough to always have at least some rational and moral people around me. Enough to know groups of friends, where nobody tries to dominate, and new members who show dominant or submissive behaviour are quickly socialized.
But that is what I tried to say, you need well-educated and well-adjusted people for a sustainable anarchist society. I'm not sure if such a society exists on a grand scale, like any country. Maybe the Scandinavian countries? But I know that people are perfectly capable to live in a free society, if they love freedom. And I know that that love of freedom is a matter of education and socialization.

To be honest, I don't have any faith in humanity any more. After Snowden, Assange, Manning, and BlueLeaks, I'm particularly disillusioned with my own government.

I also have no faith in the American people. Most people here are capitalists, even the anti-capitalists. It's contaminated our way of viewing the world that we view almost every facet of our life through some form of consumerism or economic competition. People unironically refer to the "dating market" here, and I think that's a decent example of how this mindset creeps into everything. It's no wonder to me that they had to raise the threshold for psychopathy (in the PCL-R) here because Americans are, on average, so much more psychopathic than the people of other nations.

Of course, growing up, the adult figures in my life were either apathetic or abusive and I was bullied and ostracized. I've never really had a genuine friend and I've given up on looking for one. I'm sure there are probably decent people out there somewhere, but I don't have a lot of faith that I will meet many of them and I don't intend to give anyone the chance to betray me again. That's probably why my therapist says I have a "dismissive-avoidant attachment style" and I'm "pathologically asocial."

I say all of this to point out that my main reason for advocating for anarchy isn't because I trust people to do the right thing, but because I don't trust them to wield authority responsibly.

If you think about it, though, either hard stance on this issue leads to anarchy. If people can be trusted, like you say, under certain social conditions, then a benevolent anarchy is possible and it's the clear ideal. If people can't be trusted, like I feel for admittedly biased reasons, then consolidating power in a handful of authorities only increases their ability to abuse the rest of us, and so anarchy is still preferable.

Authority is only justified in a very particularly narrow band between these two extremes, where we can only trust the people who desire positions of authority over others. I think those are actually the least trustworthy people, and I think that's the Achilles Heel of authoritarianism.

 

[Heyo]

If you think about it, though, either hard stance on this issue leads to anarchy. If people can be trusted, like you say, under certain social conditions, then a benevolent anarchy is possible and it's the clear ideal. If people can't be trusted, like I feel for admittedly biased reasons, then consolidating power in a handful of authorities only increases their ability to abuse the rest of us, and so anarchy is still preferable.

Authority is only justified in a very particularly narrow band between these two extremes, where we can only trust the people who desire positions of authority over others. I think those are actually the least trustworthy people, and I think that's the Achilles Heel of authoritarianism.

The problem is not the bullies. It is a behaviour that naturally occurs during the anal phase of development and can, if not treated correctly, become pathological.
Problematic is when the society doesn't act accordingly to the bully. It's the push-overs and the indifferent, who ruin an anarchist society. You need people who don't like authoritarianism and who know how to treat it. And you have to trust that there's always someone to oppose the beginnings of authoritarianism.

 

[Ella S.]

The problem is not the bullies. It is a behaviour that naturally occurs during the anal phase of development and can, if not treated correctly, become pathological.
Problematic is when the society doesn't act accordingly to the bully. It's the push-overs and the indifferent, who ruin an anarchist society. You need people who don't like authoritarianism and who know how to treat it. And you have to trust that there's always someone to oppose the beginnings of authoritarianism.

I find this to be a fair and articulate point.

This is going to sound really awful, and that's why I'm bringing it up. I want you to disprove it.

I have this uncomfortable feeling that the majority of people simply don't have the cognitive faculties to be anything other than sheep or, at best, unwitting pawns. I do think that this could be resolved to some degree through the widespread adoption of freethinking and anarchism, but I'm not entirely sure that everyone can be taught. I think this feeling of mine could be easily laid to rest if I could see these ideas spread to an entire geographical region, even a small town, and that would alleviate some of my misgivings.

I do think there's a good chance that anyone who's capable of rational thought, (which is literally anyone that can do simple addition since the underlying principles of formal logic are the same,) should be able to learn these. Even if they don't understand them in-depth, it would still be a massive step in the right direction.

I honestly think more people would be anarchists if they had a better understanding of social power dynamics, at least the ones who weren't grandiose enough to fall into some form of social Darwinism. To me, it really seems like an issue of getting people to understand that authority doesn't really benefit them and is, in fact, more of a parasite on the body of humanity than anything else.

But if there are those who really do need a shepherd because they can't think for themselves, what is there to offer them? How many people need a prophet or some clerical authority to tell them how to live? How many people need a political leader or a demagogue? Some of these people can break away, but the question is, can most of them break away under the right conditions? If so, what are those conditions?

This is why I'm not normally engaged in trying to convert others. I have no idea how to go about doing so. All I can do is bring forward what I've found and the conclusions that I've arrived at and why. Some people will see that, investigate it, and realize I'm right and accept it. Some people will see it as a challenge and merely defend the position they already hold. Some people might know more than me and correct me. It's the second category that I don't know how to get through to, but you're saying that people can be trained to not do that on the level of a population?

If that's the case, then there might be some hope for humanity still.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

In my view, our systems and institutions will inevitably reflect the collective state of the inner world of each individual. That doesn’t mean no effort should be given to counter the corruption, but it does mean there will be a diminishing return on focusing solely on external systems at the expense of the internal.

 

[Heyo]

This is why I'm not normally engaged in trying to convert others. I have no idea how to go about doing so. All I can do is bring forward what I've found and the conclusions that I've arrived at and why. Some people will see that, investigate it, and realize I'm right and accept it. Some people will see it as a challenge and merely defend the position they already hold. Some people might know more than me and correct me. It's the second category that I don't know how to get through to, but you're saying that people can be trained to not do that on the level of a population?

300 years ago, people would have said that democracy is impossible because it is "human nature" to follow a king. Ideas take time to "go viral". And the propaganda against anarchists is very effective, at least here. "Anarchists" and "terrorists" are used synonymously in the news. Those are things we need to get out of people's mind.
I think it is principally possible to inform more than 50% of a population - but not now and not within a few years.

 

[Link]

300 years ago, people would have said that democracy is impossible because it is "human nature" to follow a king. Ideas take time to "go viral". And the propaganda against anarchists is very effective, at least here. "Anarchists" and "terrorists" are used synonymously in the news. Those are things we need to get out of people's mind.
I think it is principally possible to inform more than 50% of a population - but not now and not within a few years.

You know we have technology for direct democracy now. Maybe in the past, people say it's too difficult. Now you just to set up enough servers and it's possible.

 

[Heyo]

You know we have technology for direct democracy now. Maybe in the past, people say it's too difficult. Now you just to set up enough servers and it's possible.

The Swiss had direct democracy for ages, even without modern technology. But somehow, the idea didn't really spread.
As I said, some ideas take time, but on a historical scale, we've gone to more justice and more freedom, I see more democracy and eventually anarchism as inevitable.

 

[Link]

Viva la revolution?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Link

Power refers to control and influence.

Anarchism is the philosophy that society is better off without a government, that people should be allowed to manage themselves. The problem is, that too many people do NOT manage themselves when given the choice. This is why anarchy means things like unbridled crime, rioting, exploitation, etc.

 

[Link]

@Link

Power refers to control and influence.

Anarchism is the philosophy that society is better off without a government, that people should be allowed to manage themselves. The problem is, that too many people do NOT manage themselves when given the choice. This is why anarchy means things like unbridled crime, rioting, exploitation, etc.

This is a false understanding of anarchism as presented today.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This is a false understanding of anarchism as presented today.

From the Oxford dictionary:
an·ar·chism
/ˈanərˌkizəm/
noun
a political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

From Merriam Webster:
anarchism
noun
an·ar·chism ˈa-nər-ˌki-zəm -ˌnär-
Synonyms of anarchism
1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

From Dictionary.com:
anarchism
[ an-er-kiz-uhm ]
Phonetic (Standard)
IPA
noun
a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.
anarchy.

 

[Link]

From the Oxford dictionary:
an·ar·chism
/ˈanərˌkizəm/
noun
a political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

From Merriam Webster:
anarchism
noun
an·ar·chism ˈa-nər-ˌki-zəm -ˌnär-
Synonyms of anarchism
1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

From Dictionary.com:
anarchism
[ an-er-kiz-uhm ]
Phonetic (Standard)
IPA
noun
a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.
anarchy.

These definitions are from power structures themselves that misinterpret anarchism. The first definition is not that bad though.

 

[PureX]

That's quite the exaggeration. It took Catalonia and France a little bit longer than an hour for the power vacuum to be filled, but if they had the guerrilla tactics that Vietnam and other modern civil wars have now, it likely could have been much longer. A number of factors impacted how those situations developed.

Of course, the next anarchist revolution might fail, but it has the potential to work out better than the last. Just have to keep learning each time, that's all. If it is a pipe dream, then we have to get as close as we can or wipe out humanity trying. Things can't continue on the way they are now.

That said, I'm not a revolutionary. Anarchy is already here. It's already working. I mentioned that in my first reply. Whatever your conception of "anarchy" is, it's probably not what I'm advocating for.



Not really. At first, if you destroy a central government, you're going to have gangland. If you have a decent dual power structure composed of anarchist mutual aid before that happens, then the anarchists simply become one more gang in the ensuing power struggle.

But anarchists could win that fight just as well as any other group could, and they would actually be better at defending territory after they took over due to their decentralized approach to organization. You can't just take out a headquarters to stop the resistance. It's a difficult thing to quell once it gains enough traction.

The anarchist groups in Catalonia and France failed to cement their position in the chaotic aftermath, and so their anarchy didn't last long. But give them a break. They succeeded at their main goal: revolution. They just didn't plan well for what came afterwards.

But if anarchists can hold enough territory, the gang wars will eventually die down, just as they would under any hierarchical state. The void in power simply has to be filled with anarchist organizations working cooperatively with one another.

The problem is that you're thinking of anarchy solely as a lack or an absence of government. You associate it with chaos. Your warped understanding of what "anarchy" represents isn't the anarchy that I support. True anarchy is order.

There is no 'hive mind' to embody the mutually supportive fantasy of anarchy that you're apparently envisioning. The instant the current "controllers" are gone the bully-boys that are ALWAYS among us will rise up and begin ruthlessly fighting to become the new controllers.

 

[Link]

There is no 'hive mind' to embody the mutually supportive fantasy of anarchy that you're apparently envisioning. The instant the current "controllers" are gone the bully-boys that are ALWAYS among us will rise up and begin ruthlessly fighting to become the new controllers.

Anarchists believe in government but label it something else. The labeling it something else is due to the fact, that power dynamics is trying to be eliminated while government comes with connotation of power dynamics and subservience.

Anarchy is where all the rights stem from. It's from rebellion against the status quo of oppression of powers that all civil rights have emerged.

Sure, the government is supposed to enforce those rights, but those rights implementations are coming out of rebellion to power and laws that were unjustly supported by them or lack of laws that should be enforced.

All good in the world due to God repelling power by courageous anarchists, even if they don't realize they are that, they don't believe in the status quo and are hoping for justice.

Anarchy is impossible without enlightenment and knowledge. It's the old democrat vs republic debate that was initially a huge issue in start of USA as a country. Now all countries are practically republics calling themselves democracies to remove the old debate.

The truth is I am not a total anarchist. But I believe any authority should be based on knowledge, not money or brute force as the power, but rather who has more knowledge. But to recognize who has more knowledge requires a great deal of knowledge among the people and so this where I see the need that everyone seeks knowledge, and the more knowledge society has, the less reliant they are on it from others. This is why I believe Quran is a means to that as are the Ahlulbayt (a).

Quran and Ahlulbayt (a) are meant to be the primary discourse, but their discourse goes wrong when manipulated in the wrong hands. This is why people have to hold scholars accountable and not blindly follow or trust them without outright trust to get everything correct nor see them all sincere and pure.

In truth I see God's book and his chosen ones and his light as the true authority, no authority really other than that. Everyone else has to show proof from those sources and speak wisdom but not to be relied on blindly.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

These definitions are from power structures themselves that misinterpret anarchism. The first definition is not that bad though.

ROFL. Sorry dude, but the ultimate authority in what English words mean are the dictionaries. It really doesn't matter if you don't like their definitions. If I think "bird" should refer to four legged mammals, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Link]

ROFL. Sorry dude, but the ultimate authority in what English words mean are the dictionaries. It really doesn't matter if you don't like their definitions. If I think "bird" should refer to four legged mammals, it really doesn't matter.

I have a whole book about the history of anarchism, it's over a 1000 pages. You can stick to your dictionary if you wish, but anarchism definition is part of the battle. Semantics is half the battle between truth and falsehood.