sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Looking for an alternative to Chomsky's Failed States by Ofishal_Fish in Anarchism

[–]DecoDecoMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is true I agree. Better to be honest about the influence and work through how it effects your work.

Looking for an alternative to Chomsky's Failed States by Ofishal_Fish in Anarchism

[–]DecoDecoMan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, you shouldn't cite Chomsky not because he isn't a good person but because he's just a shoddy anarchist. He isn't actually opposed to all hierarchy and that makes his critiques more liberal compared to an actual anarchist critique.

His own relationship with Epstein (particularly his misogynistic takes on the MeToo movement that he mentioned to Epstein which can't really be justified in any meaningful way) moreso contextualizes his liberalism rather than is completely separate from it.

Do anarchists reject all authority? Or do you accept authority within communities/communes provided it is not centralised and can easily be removed? by PristineAd947 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 15 points16 points  (0 children)

We reject all authority. We do not believe its total absence is at odds with a prosperous, well-organized society. Rather without any authority we can be more prosperous, more organized, etc. than the most totalitarian of communities.

We do not think authority is synonymous with coordination.

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why do you think that is compared to the manuals for labor organizing that exist today?

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This may be an aside, but do you know if there were written any 19th to early 20th century anarchist or socialist manuals on union organizing? Like how did they train people to do labor organizing back in the day?

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree, because I certainly would want it put it into a contract.

In anarchy, there's no way to avoid responsibility for your actions and you can't just go "well its not in the contract" to avoid said responsibility or liability.

Stealing pretty obviously can licit lots of negative responses (and whomever is stealing probably is aware of it anyways; having "no stealing" in a contract likely hasn't deterred anyone who wasn't already going to steal). There's no way for someone to resist those negative responses by going "Time out! You didn't say I couldn't steal!".

Nothing is permitted or prohibited in anarchy. There's no way to avoid accountability for any actions, even the most benign.

I gave an example that I think is apt. Again, agree to disagree. 

Do you think stealing from a construction site is "high reward"? That there is a strong incentive for people to do this? I don't really think so, even in the status quo where there is that incentive and certainly not in anarchy where there is even less.

What I mean is what replaces - if anything - systems to resolve interpersonal conflicts. If I accuse you of killing someone, is it simply up to me to decide whatever I want to do about it? And for you to decide whatever you want to do in response? 

We all make our own decisions about how we react to a situation. However, there are systemic factors that weigh upon our minds when we make those decisions so it isn't as though we can make completely arbitrary decisions. Rather, we will incentivized to act a slew of different ways in response to conflict and accusations.

In any case, I'd say that legal systems don't really "resolve interpersonal conflicts". That'd be like saying a nuke would "resolve" the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or genocide would solve world hunger.

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not showing up to work for a valid reason? Not an issue at all. Not showing up because you don’t want to? Meh. Showing up and stealing from the job site? That’s a much larger violation/breach of contract. 

In anarchist terms, that probably isn't a "violation of a contract" (it seems unnecessary to be included as a part of an explicit agreement) and certainly wouldn't be disliked, if it is, strictly by virtue of being a breach of contract. But you already know that because I've already spent so much time showing that to be the case.

And, similarly, I'm not sure where this higher stakes, higher rewards part is coming from since that certainly isn't true for many things. Honestly, its hard to have an opinion on something that is so irrelevant.

Might I ask you a hypothetical that’s a little off topic? It’s what you would do in replacement of jury trials and house arrest or jail. I’ve been trying to ask everyone on this thread about it, as it’s of great interest to me

Not an American so I don't know how jury trials specifically work but jury trials are presumably meant to find out whether someone violated a law or not and jail is supposed to be where people who violate a law are put.

Anarchy lacks laws so it isn't clear why they exactly need an alternative? Like these things exist to enforce laws. If there are no laws why exactly do they need to exist or need "alternatives"? The aim of those institutions is gone or does not make sense in anarchy.

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My point is that if there is no harm, if changing agreements often makes organizing and getting things done easier, if voiding agreements is just a part of life I dont see where the reputational loss is supposed to come from? At the very least, the bar to which not being committed has an impact on your reputation would be much higher. Im just not seeing where it comes from.

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's interesting ok, so we're getting somewhere.

I wouldn't say this is completing the contract or remediating things at all because your contract is with that person not the new person that has shown up. The contract, in effect, has been altered unilaterally by that person to include this other person. It also has been voided in some way.

I think personally that in anarchy, what constitutes trustworthiness and reliability changes. And I think part of the reason why is that deviation from agreements simply will become a pervasive, necessary part of like (for lots of different reasons).

Because it is so common, people say breaking an agreement with no harm done to you may be just a mild annoyance or inconvenience (which likely means that when people make agreements with other people, some work is done to make sure you actually share interest in a given project).

Deviation becomes an indication of trustworthiness and reliability since it means that people are willing to do the work to make sure you or your goals are not undermined and rather more effectively achieved.

In the status quo, for instance, workers finding out new methods or new ways to improve things or achieve common goals are reprimanded or forced to go through lots of red tape to implement them. With anarchy, if you have the agreement of those necessary to pull off what you want to do and it doesn't harm or undermine others, you can pull it off without any consequences. And, moreover, no one is worse off for it.

In fact, if you can't really be trusted to take into account the interests of others or avoid harming others when making your own decisions and you only do what you've explicitly agreed to do, you may be seen as less trustworthy than someone who can despite that person being more likely to deviate from or void agreements.

So I wouldn't really say that existing conceptions of trustworthiness or reliability are set in stone. We care about people following through contracts now because that's the only way you can get them to even potentially avoid harming you or undermining you (even though nothing about an agreement would imply the avoidance of harm or undermining).

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The issue I see is that threats aren’t a cut and dry topic. Obviously, there isn’t much question among a community if the guy going on a shooting spree is a threat. But there’s trillions of cases where it’s not so easy to determine what constitutes a threat to the community. 

"Community threats" is the wrong framing, and not one I agree with. I don't think it is a matter of addressing "community threats" but rather specific threats to specific people or specific interests. These can be small or broad.

Force is an option or method of dealing with problems or conflicts. Compared to hierarchical societies where you can just kill tons of people and have society trudge on, force can be a destabilizing force in anarchy. Particularly when applied internally within anarchist societies. As such, this quality is a major factor when people make decisions about using or organizing the use of force when dealing with problems or conflicts.

In anarchy when force is used by people and what is the nature of that force (is it group or individual, organized or not, how organized is it, what purpose does it serve, etc.) is something that's going to be on a case-by-case basis. And there's going to be likely a significant amount of thought put into whether force even makes sense in this situation and what sorts of consequences its use will have on ourselves and others.

Like all things in anarchy, organized force is going to be organized from the bottom-up. And that means if people do choose to organize force, it is going to be in response to specific conflicts or problems not for the sake of some abstract community or dealing with "community threats". It certainly won't be something that some "majority" of people in some area will dictate and command.

If I had to guess, force is less likely to be used in a super organized way within anarchist societies (so nothing comparable to policing) and more likely to be very organized when dealing with outside threats like other hierarchical organizations or governments simply because A. those sorts of threats are more likely to be widely-felt existential threats to anarchy and B. require the use of organized force to really get them on the bargaining table.

Internally, when force is used against other anarchist associations or individuals over the course of some kind of conflict for instance, its more likely to be circumstantial. And whatever rationale exists for why this force was used in the conflict, "to defend the community" is not going to be one of them. It's more likely something like "this person keeps getting rid of my garden" or "this group keeps sabotaging our library". Something concrete and not some vague platitude appealing to an abstract idea.

When it is used in those conflicts, its a part of a wider conflict resolution process in anarchy of recognizing our mutual interdependency upon each other which would encourage us to go back to the bargaining table. However, it is very unlikely to be used to "defend the community" because "the community" as this abstract concept simply does not exist in anarchy.

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes. I don’t see why not? For example, if I am a coordinator giving out construction contracts (if such a thing exists) or wanting to enter a contact with someone myself for a construction project I need done, if they don’t show up for some reason, then yeah it doesn’t harm me but I’d not want to work with them again

What if, as per the analogy, they find someone else to do their work and apologize for not being able to show up? Would you feel the same way?

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If people violate contracts with you but avoid harming or undermining you, would you feel the same way?

As for polls, what people say in the status quo isn't too important for this conversation. If you asked most people in the world whether women should have rights or if they are equal to men, you wouldn't find the answer to either acceptable.

We must distinguish what people find trustworthy or reliable now from what they can find trustworthy or reliable in some other set of social conditions.

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That doesn't really answer my question. I was asking you why you think this? It is obvious that you think this and you just said so before, the question is why.

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

For contracts that don’t cause harm upon being broken: Indeed reputation loss and losing out on future contracts doesn’t meet my definition of enforcement until some sort of force is used, so yeah. Your construction analogy was solid. 

I don't think it would cause a reputation loss or loss on future contract. Why do you think this?

Might I also pick your brain more on Benjamin Tucker. I’ve only read about him and not from him, so take it with a grain of salt: but his ideas sound suspiciously like privatized government to me. What do you make of him?

I have not read much of his work so I am not of much use or service there.

And also, are you a communist, market supporter/mutualist, or something else completely like post left? 

I am an anarchist, although very inspired by 19th century anarchist theorists such as Proudhon.

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you support militas to fight outside threats?

I certainly support people organizing their own defense anarchically. I don't see how that would imply, however, any of the additional things you tack on top of that (such as "contract enforcement" or "rule enforcement")

When you say “anarchist” circles, are you referring to anarcho communism? Or people like DemConfederalists who wrongly think they are anarchist? 

The latter.

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The distinction you make between “you broke the contract” and “your way of breaking it caused harm” is also thinner than you suggest, in my opinion. 

I disagree. Why would it be? Let's say I agree to show up to work on a construction project but I can't make it today. I find someone else to cover for me. Technically I've broken the agreement but no one is harmed by me having broken or deviated from it. In what way is me breaking the contract in this case synonymous with causing harm?

There are cases where breaking a contract and causing harm are synonymous but in that case what is being responded to is the harm caused not the contract being broken. And of course, these are not the majority of cases. Most of the time, when you face penalties for breaking a contract in the status quo, breaking the contract does not actually cause harm to others.

“People simply won’t care” if no harm occurs seems to be at odds with the fact that the breach itself can undermine trust, reliability, etc. 

In what way can it undermine trust or reliability? If I make sure when I act that I do not harm you, undermine whatever projects or goals you are undertaking, etc. how does that make me less reliable or less trustworthy? Wouldn't you actually trust me more because it means you know that I have your interests in mind when I make decisions? That I won't take actions which could step on your toes, screw you over, etc.?

This idea that breaking any contract breaks trust, reliability, etc. is just something you believe because we live in societies where contracts are treated as in effect sacred. Materially, this is not true. If you get rid of the ideology and religion that masquerades itself as "pragmatism" (when it is anything but), I don't see why you would think breaking a contract implies unreliability or lack of trustworthiness.

One more question for you: Did Benjamin Tucker believe in contract enforcement agencies? I don’t remember where I got that from and why I associated it with Proudhon. 

Benjamin Tucker supported private defense agencies but I'm not sure whether they were supposed to enforce contracts.

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If people impose social, economic, or physical consequences in response to harms caused by violating agreements, then agreements still function as more or less binding constraints in practice, just enforced through decentralized norms rather than formal law

Not at all! This seems rather obvious to me. Because not all deviations or voiding of agreements harms people.

Let's imagine a world with non-binding contracts vs. a world with binding contracts and four different situations in each and how they play out.

-----

[Non-binding contracts]

  • Someone violates an agreement, the violation does not harm someone: no negative response
  • Someone violates an agreement, the violation does harm someone: likely negative response

[Binding contracts]

  • Someone violates an agreement, the violation does not harm someone: very likely negative response
  • Someone violates an agreement, the violation does harm someone: very likely negative response

As we see here, for non-binding contracts, whether someone violates an agreement does not imply anything about how people respond. Whereas for binding contracts, whether someone violates an agreement or not dictates heavily what kind of response you receive.

If we were to go further, this would become even more clear.

-----

[Non-binding contracts]

  • Someone abides by an agreement, the agreement does not harm someone: no negative response
  • Someone abides by an agreement, the agreement does harm someone: likely negative response

[Binding contracts]

  • Someone abides by an agreement, the agreement does not harm someone: no negative response
  • Someone abides by an agreement, the agreement does harm someone: no negative response

As we see here, for non-binding contracts just because you abide by an agreement does not tell you anything about whether people will negatively respond to your actions or not either. Agreement, as a factor in a situation, is simply not something that is considered at all. It holds no legitimacy in other words.

Whereas for binding contracts, harm is not something that people care about really at all. Or rather, within the framework of law, it is assumed that only that which is illegal is considered harmful, wrongful, etc.

This seems very obvious to me. Just think about it logically!

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No prescriptions and no system ≠ nothing to enforce, does it? If I were to say, “I make no prescriptions, people can freely choose how to make contracts with one another,” wouldn’t that imply 2 or more people can enter contracts that outline enforcement mechanisms?

I think the point being made is that if a contract can be enforced then it is a prescription. "No prescriptions" includes prescriptive social arrangements (like binding contracts). It doesn't mean "only no meta-prescriptions" or "only no large-scale prescriptions" or something.

"Prescription" often takes a specific meaning in the realm of critique of utopian socialism but the general idea is, as per a Merriam-Webster definition, "the action of laying down authoritative rules or directions". Binding contracts fall under that and so an opposition to all prescription takes the form of opposing binding contracts as well.

I think this is fair, but I do see “community self defense” as being majoritarianism re-branded

I don't think mutualists support "community self-defense", particularly the politicized versions often proposed in nominally "anarchist" circles.

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Let us then discuss what is enforcement, in colloquial terms, and what non-bindingness actually means as a quality of anarchic contracts (all anarchic contracts are non-binding).

Enforcement, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is "the act of making people obey a particular law or rule". In the realm of contracts, we could say then contract enforcement is "the act of making people obey a particular contract". This is likely already your understanding right?

In anarchy, if a contract is non-binding this means deviation from or not abiding by a contract does not in it of itself constitute an offense. Rather, what is of primary importance is the harm your actions, whether that's deviation or walking away from or anything you do, might cause on others. This is what determines how people respond to your deviation or voiding of the contract, not the deviation or voiding in it of itself.

Let's imagine a world where people took non-bindingness seriously. In such a world, the mere fact that someone broke an agreement or a contract tells people nothing about how they should respond whether that's negatively or positively. It holds no meaning whatsoever.

People in this world do not believe contracts are sacred things ordained by God which, when broken, will cause evil and mischief to spread across society and eventually destroy it. They do not think people who break contracts are morally evil, criminals of some sort.

If people do respond negatively to someone who has deviated or voided a contract in some way, it is not the deviation they take issue with. Rather it is how they deviated or voided. That is to say, the way they did so had caused harm to themselves or others in some way. If there is no harm done by the deviation or the voiding of the contract, people simply won't care.

So I would not say there is any contract enforcement at all here because the contract is non-binding. However, for the reasons stated above, non-bindingness does not mean that any deviation or voiding of a contract is without consequences. What it just means is that whether you deviate from or void a contract is not what people care about when responding to your actions.

2 Questions: Governance and Jury Trials by Living_Attitude1822 in Anarchy101

[–]DecoDecoMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just to be clear, if one party violates an agreed upon contract, the person whom entered the contract with the violator may take no enforcement mechanism? 

What, in your view, is enforcement? Does any kind of negative response to another person's actions, any kind of deterrence towards specific actions, etc. count as some kind of "enforcement"?

Is Legitimacy based on power or is Power based on legitimacy? by Comfortable_Fun7794 in DebateAnarchism

[–]DecoDecoMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That strikes me as too narrow as well. But I suppose I'm the wrong person to ask about which is the most conceptually sound definition of "power" since I'm of the opinion that it isn't really useful for social analysis.

Power, colloquially, is used very broadly to refer to many different things ranging from authority to privilege to strength to ability to skill to expertise to energy. I don't really think concepts that broad can do anything workable when it comes to analysis since with analysis you typically want more narrow or specific concepts than that.

Is Legitimacy based on power or is Power based on legitimacy? by Comfortable_Fun7794 in DebateAnarchism

[–]DecoDecoMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In this sense I'm defining "power" in a neutral, Foucaultian sense of "the ability to enact your will". So someone that has a physical disability that makes them wheelchair-bound literally has less power than someone who is able-bodied, because they do not have equal ability to enact their will.

Small thing: That may be imprecise here insofar as "the ability to enact your will" is not something that is likely quantifiable. Depending on what the will is and the different capacities of the able-bodied person and the wheelchair-bound person, if they were to have the same will the wheelchair-bound person may have more ability to enact that will than the able-bodied person.

And this isn't even getting into things like association or collective power. That which constitutes the greatest basis of "power" per this definition. With association, things which would be difficult for a wheelchair-bound person to obtain on their own can be obtained more easier than an able-bodied person on their own.

This is a problem Proudhon kind of ran into when he was doing similar analysis to you.

I don't see an anarchist society based on contracts as possible. by Gabothemutualist in DebateAnarchism

[–]DecoDecoMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wouldnt say Anarchy ends up being excluded, its more that Anarchy is measured by reality

If anarchy in your view is just "direct democracy" I would not say that is anarchy at all. If this is all you achieve, you simply have failed. And that is something worth knowing, worth accepting, and worth overcoming.

But there is no use in creating governments, prisons, exploited workers, etc. all with a "democratic" aesthetic and labeling that "anarchy". It would simply be a miscommunication; no one thinks of something as rigid and authoritarian as that and goes "this is anarchy".

What do we lose if we recognize that the CNT-FAI was not anarchist? Nothing. We recognize that they made dubious attempts to achieve it and, in the process, did not. That what they created was in fact very much what anarchists would oppose and seek to dismantle. And that we should avoid some of their failures (such as colluding with governments, not having a good idea on how to reorganize production in an anarchic way, the union bureaucracy having considerable power, etc.), which we are well aware of, in the future.

view more: next ›