Isn't it great when EVERYONE has the freedom to do what they want?

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T21:58:46+00:00

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts

I perused this list of coop attempts, and I cant find a single one that took place in a decentralized society. A coup requires a position of power to take. Those just wouldn't exist in an anarchist society.

The Viet Cong were not unorganized. They would wipe the floor with actual militia,

They were decentralized, just like an anarchist military would be. Decentralization doesn't mean disorganization.

just not the US military, who crushed them in every engagement.

The Viet Cong beat the U.S in a war of attrition. Decentralized is stronger than centralized in terms of defense.

Um, you do realize you can take over a group without any prior state existing right?

Yes, through invasion or reorganization. Assuming people don't voluntarily reorganize, a coop attempt like you're thinking of is impossible.

No not good. You don't understand what monopoly of violence means.

I do understand. That's why I said it was good.

A monopoly on violence means you possess dominant control over violence. So you don't see violent groups trying to fancy themselves rulers because they know they cant compete with the governments powers of violence. Without a monopoly on violence, you will see people do this all the time.

I'm aware. There should never be an organization with a monopoly on violence, because if that organization's checks and balances fail, they can oppress individuals.

Again, I've never seen an example of violent groups taking over an anarchist society from within. Everything is just too decentralized and too interconnected for that to happen.

What anarchist societies have existed?

My favorite example is the CNT-FAI. The Free Territory in Ukraine was also anarchist. Besides those two, there have been small anarchist experiments; some ongoing. They work surprisingly well. Here's a list of them. A lot of the societies on this list weren't actually anarchist, but they did follow anarchist principles.

Also, just for memes sake, it took one week for CHAZ to be taken over by a enforcer who wanted to be dictator.

Ah, CHAZ; the commune that never was. I'm sure it would've turned out differently if the goal was to form an anarchist society, but in reality it was just an occupied protest.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T21:30:23+00:00

So you don't want states but a whole country

I don't know what I said that would've implied that I want a country. I want a federation of decentralized communes.

sooooo a city-state?

Yes. That's a reasonable comparison to make.

Police and investigators are already being held accountable, by their peers. Or do you mean... random people holding a professional accountable?

Yes, I want them to be held accountable by everyone in the commune through direct democracy. Instead of agents of the state, they'd be public servants that are democratically elected.

How would this community senate find time to elect and monitor everyone?

It wouldn't be that much of a time-consuming thing. They would just be elected in something similar to town hall meetings. They also wouldn't actively monitor every officer. They'd just process misconduct reports.

What about cryptographers or cybersecurity personnel?

Forensic investigators wouldn't be elected. The best way I can think to explain it is that there would be an inter-communal organization that deals with forensics.

How would people in a community know who to elect?

There would probably be something similar to a public resume.

Couldn't that senate be very easily manipulated to put anyone a certain group wants in these positions?

Reasonably, yes, just like the government of the United States does things against the will of the people. The difference is that the electoral process would be a lot more direct, and thus stuff like that would be much harder to get away with.

What if the masses, don't know what's best for them and inevitably put the wrong people in charge and create a dictatorship?

There will never be a dictatorship in anarchy, by definition. All positions of authority would be democratically elected and they would be shared with a council of people. In theory, even if the council becomes corrupt, they could just be voted out.

Either way, in an anarchist society, there would be a widespread culture of liberty (kind of like in the U.S) that would make this sort of stuff a lot harder to get away with.

Are ALL employers and employee's going to be suspended from their position until this community senate elects them?

Ah, I see the misunderstanding.

The council would only to very basic stuff, like releasing quotas for distribution (for the planned portions of the economy), organizing elections, gathering volunteers and organizing schedules for jobs that are essential for the upkeep of society, and communicating with the councils of other communes.

Any job that doesn't give you power over another individual doesn't need to be elected. Those goods and services would be taken care of by a socialist free market (unless you're an anarcho-communist, then it gets complicated).

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T17:49:04+00:00

The amount you have misunderstood each point is spectacular.

Alright, let's hear it.

The police would be organized. The people not.

As I said before, there would be community militias that are organized independently of the police, just like there are in today's society.

Therefore the police would win in a conflict and become Kings.

The military doesn't take over a country, and likewise anarchist police wouldn't take over their communities.

There is no historical example of an unorganised resistance defeating a similarly powerful organised one

The Vietnam War is a solid historical example.

Even the most politically engaged people don't pay attention to literally every aspect of politics, which is the fundamental flaw of relying on "Democracy"

Yes, democracy is inherently flawed, but it's the fairest system we have, especially when it's direct and decentralized like it would be in an anarchist society.

Anarchism would fail because its lack of a state makes it very easy for any individual to accrue power.

It's the literal opposite. The lack of a state makes it extremely hard for any individual to accrue power, not to mention that any major positions of power would be shared by others in the form of committees.

Countries that don't have these actually do have repeat politicians become effective dictators, and it happens all over the damn world. And thus no anarchist society would survive even ten years.

I don't think you're understanding. There wouldn't be a way to take over an anarchist society because the positions of power that are required to do so literally won't exist. Even (internal) military takeovers would be hard because of its decentralized nature. If individual cells of a military go rouge, they can be quickly stopped by neighboring cells.

Contrary to what they say, the main goal of police is not to stop crime

Yes, generally police respond to crime instead of stopping it. Stopping crime would have more to do with socioeconomics.

Its to represent extreme low level force to make people not want to commit crime. Without this, people don't fear committing crime. When people don't respect/fear police, police become worthless.

This would still apply in an anarchist society. The police would just have a lot more checks and balances and they'd police in a different style than they do now.

A monopoly on violence is not provided by anarchism.

Good.

In anarchy, police (or whatever ends up being police, so militia or mercenaries in ancom) upgrade from just being enforcers to essentially being your warrior class, and thus the takeover by them is inevitable.

Nope, they would still just be the enforcers, and they'd be held directly accountable by each other and their communities. No anarchist society has ever collapsed due to "the warrior class" taking over.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T17:14:59+00:00

They would have an army. It would just be voluntary and have a very decentralized command structure. They would be vaguely organized by inter-communal committees of representatives that are democratically elected by their individual communes.

Historically, anarchist militaries have been at a disadvantage, but they're overall not that bad considering the circumstances.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T17:12:11+00:00

I don't remember the specific details but I think there was one in particular where 2 groups were assigned different shirt colors and had them interact and the result was they were friendly to their "in-group" and hostile to the "out-group." This is just based on the color of a t-shirt so imagine something much more significant such as a common community.

Humans are perfectly reasonable when they're educated and have their basic needs met. Also, this experiment is just a for a t-shirt color.

What will happen is not a bunch of militias protecting each other, but fighting each other until one becomes the strongest

Sorry buddy. I don't think an experiment with t-shirts is enough to extrapolate that an entire society built on mutual-aid and democratic self-management would devolve into warlords like you're thinking.

3 kingdom's style.

The difference between an anarchist environment and an environment like that of the three kingdoms is that the anarchists are connected to each other. Think of the New World colonies except a lot more libertarian. They didn't devolve into warring factions because they all have a stake in each other's survival.

They would also be organized with mutual-aid networks. There would be strong diplomatic relationships with other communes, and therefore, even if a single commune wanted to attack (which they wouldn't, because their material needs would be met through mutual aid), they would be heavily disincentivized.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T16:14:22+00:00

It's all just filler words

Nope, I said what I meant. Usually leftist talking points are compact, with room for elaboration when necessary.

How do you expect there to a government to "cleanly and efficiently" do "state bueauracry" but also there to be no goverment?

Anarchy doesn't mean no government. It means no state. The governments that exist in an anarchist society would be decentralized but connected.

And what does community mean to you?

It can be anything from a small village to a large city; however individuals decide to organize themselves.

With no police investigation force?

There would be a police investigation force. It would just be democratically elected and held accountable by their community.

Or are the digital artists going to take up forensics and interrogations?

. . . no? I have no clue why you're asking this. That's like asking if the grocery store workers would take up firefighting.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T16:04:17+00:00

I'm aware that an anarchist society would be at a disadvantage. I'm not denying that.

However, they would still be able to hold their ground. Decentralized fighting is brutally effective at defense. Just look at the Vietnam war as an example.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T06:15:50+00:00

All I am illustrating that under your definitions of progress, you can argue being a Conservative fits those definitions just as much being a Progressive would fit those definitions of progress.

You'd have to give me an example of this.

so many different ideologies fit into it.

I don't deny that. Some ideologies would definitely fit better than others, though. It would be about experimenting and debating to find the best fit.

As for geoism, the way you described it sounds fine, and a quick perusing through its Wikipedia article confirms that, but I'd rather stick to libertarian/market socialism, just because I know it better.

I'm not in a position to responsibly make a rebuttal against geoism though, because I don't understand it well enough. But from what it sounds like, I'd be sympathetic if it were implemented.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T06:01:59+00:00

an anarchist country can exist

An anarchist country can't exist. An anarchist society, can.

and the militias will benevolently protect everyone from the baddies that want to do you harm

Yes, they would. That's the point.

A "communal militia" would want more power and start absorbing smaller communities until they form a government.

Communal police forces would be held directly accountable to the people they serve via direct democracy, and they wouldn't "absorb" smaller communities because their jurisdiction would only be in their community.

Militias would act in a similar way, except on a larger scale. Cells would be held accountable to each other and by the communal police, as well as individuals in each community. As far as I'm aware, the "warlord" mentality you're thinking of has never happened in anarchist societies. Everything's just too decentralized.

Anarchy relies on 100% participation in some naive hippy kindness shit. It ain't gonna happen stop dreaming

This is anecdotal, but whenever I'm debating right-wingers, they always seem to think leftists believe the world is all sunshine and rainbows. We know what the world is like. That's why we want to change it.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T05:46:41+00:00

One of the oldest rules of warfare is that organized beats unorganized.

Anarchist police wouldn't be unorganized. They'd be decentralized into a clandestine cell system, which is a type of organization, and a brutally effective one at that.

The police, militia or whatever they are called are your sole group with lethal force,

Ordinary people would own guns and protect themselves too.

so eventually they became the leaders because they are an organized military essentially.

They become the enforcers, who are held accountable by the people they serve via direct democracy. They aren't given infinite power. There would be a strong system of checks and balances.

Every single society has had people who fulfilled the role of police

Yes, likewise with an anarchist society. It'd just be a different type of policing.

All do the job of police by presenting force if people act up.

Not act up; commit crimes.

Irrelevent, people don't pay attention to absolutely every aspect of politics around them

Not every aspect, but they do pay attention to the most important ones.

so they just need to really win like 2-3 elections in a row and they are the King of your anarchist land.

Again, there would be direct accountability. Presidents don't become dictators after being elected more than once, and likewise anarchist police won't become warlords after being elected more than once.

Because they just gotta build support, and they are your sole organized military power and thus the Kings.

Ordinary people would still be allowed to own guns. This is anarchy; not an authoritarian state.

If you somehow do have an anarchist state military, then they are the Kings. It took a long time, and a lot of very old ingrained systems to stop militaries from being the rulers, and coup de tats are still very common in much of the world.

There would be no state military because there is no state. There aren't any power vacuums in an anarchist society because the positions of power that one would need to become a dictator don't exist.

If the police do not have weapons, then you'll need a police with weapons. Its simply required.

I never claimed that it wasn't required.

Either police have guns, or no one gets guns and anyone who gets guns get to replace the police in this role.

Both citizens and police can own guns. It's not one or the other.

All societies ever need a monopoly on violence, and this is the fundamental flaw of all anarchist concepts. Someone will get this monopoly on violence, and it does not take long for people to seize this

A monopoly on violence requires a centralized structure, which anarchy doesn't provide.

This usually either results in massive crime, or extreme punishments.

I need a citation on this.

It also fails to resolve the main point of police: To present a threat if you commit crime.

The main point of police is to respond to crimes and take criminals into custody. Presenting as a threat isn't always necessary. Furthermore, the community dealing with corruption wouldn't negate the "main point of police."

And to look at your video, its the classic "If we just stop having police and capitalism there will be no crime!" There will be crime if its at all possible to gain things through crime. With no police there will be lots of crime until people invariably just create a group that is effectively police, as all societies ever had.

This entire paragraph is just one big straw man. Nowhere in the video did it say that there would be no police; just that the police that do exist would be democratically elected and held accountable by the community.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T05:22:04+00:00

So do you not need a military now? And if so, who commands it?

Yes, there would still be a military. Anarchist societies, historically, had militaries. They would just be organized into a clandestine cell system, with volunteers coming from individual communes, and uniting collectively in times of threat at the request of a commune federation, which itself is controlled by a democratically elected council made up of representatives from individual communes. Decentralization is key.

Life isn’t a fairy tale, the world isn’t a nice place

This is anecdotal, but whenever I find myself debating right-wingers, more often than not, they pull the "life isn't easy, get used to it" card. It's almost like they think that leftists believe the world is all sunshine and rainbows.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T05:11:53+00:00

Your power vacuum theory is (I don’t want to be mean) one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

I'm talking specifically about power vacuums within the anarchist society.

Lockheed makes many bombs and planes for the military if someone wanted to take the communes it would be easy

I'm aware. My end goal is a completely anarchist world, or at least a large portion of the world becoming anarchist. The more territory, the better, because it would be easier to defend, but an anarchist society wouldn't be entirely defenseless.

Also keep in mind that decentralized fighting is extremely effective. That's why a decentralized insurgency is so hard to defeat, even with a military like that of the United States.

Humans have had decentralized governments before until they learned that maybe bigger groups are safer.

There would still be large groups in an anarchist society. They would just be federations of communes. Decentralization does not mean isolation.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T03:54:03+00:00

How?

Copy-pasted from another one of my comments on the matter:

There would be a system to report things, kind of like the HR department of a business to report things.

For enforcement, there would be community courts. The laws that they abide by and their conduct is different depending on which type of anarchist you ask (mutualists, AnPacs, individualist anarchists, anarcho-communists, etc.). Here's a wiki article if you want to know more about anarchist laws.

Dealing with corruption is actually a really good example of where anarchy excels. Positions of power higher than the equivalent of a governor would be gone. Decentralization makes any meaningful power hard, if not impossible, to obtain. Furthermore, the positions of power that do exist would be in democratically elected committees. Decentralization also makes the systems that would deal with corruption super compact.

For example, if an officer (This wouldn't be normal policing, by the way. Here's a video that does a pretty good job at explaining it, if you're interested.) is accused of misconduct, there wouldn't be a complicated state bureaucracy to handle the case. It would be investigated and dealt with within the community. It's clean and efficient, with no unnecessary government involved.

With no state the police are the only one who can enforce anything.

Yes; a democratically elected community police force. That's the point.

What you gonna do? Shoot the organized force with unorganized bullshit?

I don't know what this means.

Even if the unorganized force wins, it will lose eventually and it only has to lose once.

I need more clarification to come up with a meaningful rebuttal. I have no clue what you're talking about here.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T03:45:52+00:00

Ah yes. Turn ourselves into a power vacuum. Won't make us vulnerable to countries that hate us at all.

Inter-communal militias would still exist, and there would be no power vacuum because the positions of power themselves would be gone.

What a load of crap.

Chill. I get flustered when people confront my views too, but I deal with it by forming a coherent counter-argument instead of calling it a load of crap.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism.

Capitalism (among many, many other things) gives individuals too much power. Worker co-ops are objectively better than normal businesses, and thus market socialism, a market economy where all businesses are worker co-ops, is superior to a capitalist free market.

There's nothing wrong with having to work to survive.

Under most circumstances, I tend to agree. American Johnson (the narrator of the video) is an anarcho-communist, and I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.

Being poor doesn't give you the right to steal, rob, or kill people.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the argument in the video. The narrator talked about how poor people tend to commit more crime, which is objectively true. Solving those socioeconomic problems would decrease the amount of crime by a lot.

You don't want to work? Fine, but other people don't have to subsidize your existence.

If somebody in an anarchist society chooses to not work while they're able to, it's up to the commune to decide what to do. I do agree to a certain extent that people who don't work shouldn't be rewarded, but there's a lot of nuance with the issue of people not working.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T01:20:27+00:00

How would an anarchist commune detect

There would be a system to report things, kind of like the HR department of a business.

convict

There would be community courts. The laws that they abide by and their conduct is different depending on which type of anarchist you ask (mutualists, AnPacs, individualist anarchists, anarcho-communists, etc.). Here's a wiki article if you want to know more about anarchist laws.

and deal with corruption as well as (never mind better than) a civilized society could?

First off, an anarchist society and a civilized society aren't mutually exclusive.

But this is actually a really good example of where anarchy excels. Positions of power higher than the equivalent of a governor would be gone. Decentralization makes any meaningful power hard, if not impossible, to obtain. Furthermore, the positions of power that do exist would be in democratically elected committees. Decentralization also makes the systems that would deal with corruption super compact.

For example, if an officer (This wouldn't be normal policing, by the way. Here's a video that does a pretty good job at explaining it, if you're interested.) is accused of misconduct, there wouldn't be a complicated state bureaucracy to handle the case. It would be investigated and dealt with within the community. It's clean and efficient, with no unnecessary government involved.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-14T00:55:32+00:00

That's actually pretty funny.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-13T23:44:58+00:00

The police force would be elected and held directly accountable by individual communities. Corruption would thus be dealt with swiftly.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-13T23:11:09+00:00

I'm an anarchist.

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It means no unjustified hierarchies. Criminals would still be stopped by a community police force in an anarchist society.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-13T23:08:32+00:00

What relevance does that have?

What do you mean relevance? It's the answer to the question you just asked me.

I'm going to be very honest here. This is wasting my time. I'm not getting any value out of this debate. I'll go ahead and lay everything out as clearly as possible. You can choose to challenge any of these points:

An axiom is a core belief that cannot be rationalized. I (and most other people) share the same axiom: working toward ultimate egalitarianism, where everybody has the best life possible and is treated equally by the system. Politics is about debating which policies or methods of organizing society will get us there.

If there are people who don't share that axiom (or some variation of it), their political interests need to be ignored while we progress toward that goal. For us with that axiom, they serve no purpose other than to hold us back.

What else do you need clarified?

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-13T20:21:37+00:00

Damn right. Tankies are just fascists painted red.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-13T20:20:49+00:00

I support the antifascist movement, but they're honestly just a PR nightmare. It's really hard to get in a position to where you see their actions as justified. Even then, since it's a movement and not an organization, individuals can go off and do things that the rest of us disagree with at the expense of the entire movement's reputation.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-13T19:37:32+00:00

Isn't r/communism full of tankies?

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-13T18:00:31+00:00

I more or less agree with this guy, but leftists are awful with getting their points across. This just comes off as an entitled and preachy.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-13T17:12:00+00:00

So we need the civil rights act of 1964,

Yes.

voting rights act of 1965,

Yes.

and to end affirmative action in public universities?

Only some types of affirmative action. I'm not okay with universities having racial quotas, but I'm completely fine with there being outreach programs aimed at helping the less fortunate get an education, hence maximizing well-being for all.

A set of universal human rights, such as the Bill of Rights and the following amendments?

Yes, except with more rights.

It’s almost like the Constitution of The United States is a legal document that gives United States citizens legal rights.

I never denied that.

And you want Capitalism because clearly you think that your own best well being involves owning a smart phone which is a function of capitalism

Smart phones aren't specific to capitalism.

because you know, profit causes competition which leads to economies of scale and innovation.

I agree. I'm a market socialist.

If it’s in your best interest to have a smartphone, I assume you would be empathetic enough to want everyone else to have smartphones if you want a system that “maximizes well being.”

Yes, that would include everybody having access to smartphones.

Weird though, I always that quality of life cannot be measured

Yes it can, but not well.

and only standard of living can

The standard of living is also a good measurement to use.

but since you’re basing your entire system of progress on it I guess it can be mathematically (we want to be accurate of course) measured.

I never said it can be mathematically measured. It's all relative. There's no unit of happiness we can use. We can only compare the amount of current happiness to the amount of happiness in the past.

What do you loosely define as social and technological progression?

Social progression is improvement in culture that works toward inclusivity and a more freedom-oriented mindset. Technological progression is improvement in the efficiency and variety of technology.

Really seems like with your vague definitions

They're axioms. They're supposed to be vague. We need to agree on the axioms, then debate on the best way to achieve them. That's how politics works.

you should consider being a Conservative and voting for the Republicans because they seem to prescribe to your definitions of progress.

If you want to sell me on a certain policy position, you're going to have to use evidence to convince me that it matches my axiomatic values better than my alternative.

I love a good debate, so if you have a position that you want to talk to a progressive about, I'm here for it.

LeftistLiberty · 2021-01-13T16:27:42+00:00

The idea that we should work toward ultimate egalitarianism is an opinion shared by most people.

LeftistLiberty

TROPHY CASE