Politics Anarchism as a Social and Political Philosphy

[RobbieK]

Mod note: Discussion has been moved from a different thread into this one at a point that hopefully makes enough sense.

An 'open society' shunning people for 'misgendering', as you advocate, is as anarchist as an Amish community is anarchist.

It is up to an anarchist community to work out for itself its expectations of behaviour for its members and the consequences for failure to live up to those standards.

I don't see why that could not include an expectation that members within that community not practice bigotry and prejudice against others. Can you imagine an anarchist community shunning or at the least discouraging the expression of the views of a racist member? Or a sexist member? Or a homophobic member? These views, irrational views, are in opposition to the fundamental principles of a community without hierarchy, and the community would need to work out its approach to dealing with this threat. As Popper says, this could just be in the field of ideas, but if the threat is deemed to be greater then the response might be stronger.

Is bigotry against trans people any different? The medical field is pretty clear on the best approach to take with trans people. Consciously and purposefully misgendering trans people is bigotry, causes harm to others and can be reflective of the existence of more violent forms of bigotry against trans people. It is not inconceivable that an anarchist community that had made the decision to protect and upheld the well-being of trans members would decide to take actions of some sort against members who did the opposite.

Do you think anarchist societies are totally without social norms or consequences for breaking those norms?

 

[King Brown]

It is up to an anarchist community to work out for itself its expectations of behaviour for its members and the consequences for failure to live up to those standards.

I don't see why that could not include an expectation that members within that community not practice bigotry and prejudice against others. Can you imagine an anarchist community shunning or at the least discouraging the expression of the views of a racist member? Or a sexist member? Or a homophobic member? These views, irrational views, are in opposition to the fundamental principles of a community without hierarchy, and the community would need to work out its approach to dealing with this threat. As Popper says, this could just be in the field of ideas, but if the threat is deemed to be greater then the response might be stronger.

Is bigotry against trans people any different? The medical field is pretty clear on the best approach to take with trans people. Consciously and purposefully misgendering trans people is bigotry, causes harm to others and can be reflective of the existence of more violent forms of bigotry against trans people. It is not inconceivable that an anarchist community that had made the decision to protect and upheld the well-being of trans members would decide to take actions of some sort against members who did the opposite.

Do you think anarchist societies are totally without social norms or consequences for breaking those norms?

These 'norms' move relatively quickly. Misgendering was a term unheard of outside of academic circles only five years ago. Imagine being shunned from society for making an objective observation, such as a person with a penis is a man, that was considered a 'norm' only a few years ago.

Does not sound like a rational basis for political organisation. Such a society would collapse within years. People would flee from it due to its implicit oppression.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It is up to an anarchist community to work out for itself its expectations of behaviour for its members and the consequences for failure to live up to those standards.

Can you detect the fundamental flaws in this reasoning?

I don't see why that could not include an expectation that members within that community not practice bigotry and prejudice against others.

This goes without stating and is a basic requirement of anarchist philosophy.

It's impossible to be a bigot and an anarchist.

However, the moment this is enforced by government policy it ceases to be an anarchist concept.

 

[RobbieK]

Can you detect the fundamental flaws in this reasoning?

This goes without stating and is a basic requirement of anarchist philosophy.

It's impossible to be a bigot and an anarchist.

However, the moment this is enforced by government policy it ceases to be an anarchist concept.

Ok, so we agree that bigotry and anarchism are incompatible. It's great to have some common ground.

The issue then becomes the matter of defining what is considered to be bigotry. This isn't static, it is up to a community to continually reassess and redefine its values.

So, when I say this:

"It is up to an anarchist community to work out for itself its expectations of behaviour for its members and the consequences for failure to live up to those standards."

I really don't see what your problem is. I made no mention of government policy. I'm talking about a community engaged in building a consensus about what is an appropriate way for them to live with each other. That community will then need to come to decisions about what to do when members of the community fail to live up to those standards or threaten the ongoing function of the community with divisive acts. There is wide range of potential responses.

Can you explain to me where I am going wrong, here? How do you think an anarchist community could/should function if the community wasn't making these decisions about expectations for its members and there wasn't consequences for failure to meet those expectations?

 

[Taylor]

Wouldn't an anarchist community mob rule anyway?

Mobs are always so even handed and reasonable. I'm sure a minority with jarring differences to a very engrained normal would be widely accepted.

 

[RobbieK]

These 'norms' move relatively quickly. Misgendering was a term unheard of outside of academic circles only five years ago. Imagine being shunned from society for making an objective observation, such as a person with a penis is a man, that was considered a 'norm' only a few years ago.

Does not sound like a rational basis for political organisation. Such a society would collapse within years. People would flee from it due to its implicit oppression.

It is up to the community to continually define these norms. It isn't static. Sometimes they do move quickly, sure. Being shunned is just one hypothetical action a community could take when a member fails to meet the expectations of behaviour within the community. It is up to the community itself to determine what an appropriate action is in situation.

Some people (like me) aren't happy living in a community in what they feel there is explicit oppression against trans people. Some people (like you) aren't happy living in a community in which they feel there is an implicit oppression against people who are transphobic. We all have decisions to make about how we want to live. The kind of community I would live in and the kind of community you would want to live in are going to be different, and that's fine - we should be free to join and form the kind of community that we want. If you don't like the sound of my community I have no desire to compel you to stay within it.

 

[King Brown]

It is up to the community to continually define these norms. It isn't static. Sometimes they do move quickly, sure. Being shunned is just one hypothetical action a community could take when a member fails to meet the expectations of behaviour within the community. It is up to the community itself to determine what an appropriate action is in situation.

Some people (like me) aren't happy living in a community in what they feel there is explicit oppression against trans people. Some people (like you) aren't happy living in a community in which they feel there is an implicit oppression against people who are transphobic. We all have decisions to make about how we want to live. The kind of community I would live in and the kind of community you would want to live in are going to be different, and that's fine - we should be free to join and form the kind of community that we want. If you don't like the sound of my community I have no desire to compel you to stay within it.

Let me put it this way: I can't see a community that shuns people for misgendering having enough competent tradesmen.

 

[Taylor]

It is only because we live in a paradise that we are looking to combat these issues, we are inherently violent creatures and need a fight but there aren't any, so we divide the community and make one.

The best thing that could happen is for easy beat aliens to invade, they see us all the same and treat us all like scum until we band together to kill them all when we remember we are elite chasing killing machines.

 

[RobbieK]

Wouldn't an anarchist community mob rule anyway?

Mobs are always so even handed and reasonable. I'm sure a minority with jarring differences to a very engrained normal would be widely accepted.

Not necessarily. Which is not to say that an anarchist group descending in to mob rule couldn't happen, but it isn't the only way an anarchist society could/has functioned. You can have a democratic, non-hierarchical, consensus based form of decision making that is neither a chaotic mob rule nor the same nor a reproduction of the State.

 

[RobbieK]

Let me put it this way: I can't see a community that shuns people for misgendering having enough competent tradesmen.

And I know a bunch of queer and trans tradespeople that would be happy to live in it.

You are really caught up on this one potential norm a community might want to instill in its members and one potential consequence that community might chose for a member who failed to live up to that expectation. You might not think it will work, but that isn't up to you - it is up to the community itself to make those decisions.

 

[Taylor]

Not necessarily. Which is not to say that an anarchist group descending in to mob rule couldn't happen, but it isn't the only way an anarchist society could/has functioned. You can have a democratic, non-hierarchical, consensus based form of decision making that is neither a chaotic mob rule nor the same nor a reproduction of the State.

Like a tribal council to decide issues?

 

[King Brown]

And I know a bunch of queer and trans tradespeople that would be happy to live in it.

I'm sure you do. How many in total? Enough to keep your society running? Any of them work on Sydney's light rail, the Barangaroo project, any engineering projects at scale? Or just a couple of carpenters and electricians?

You are really caught up on this one potential norm a community might want to instill in its members and one potential consequence that community might chose for a member who failed to live up to that expectation. You might not think it will work, but that isn't up to you - it is up to the community itself to make those decisions.

It's not one potential norm - it's any potential norm. You have established that norms will change at pace. Why would anyone want to live in a society where you are having norms 'instilled' in you by a community at a rate where if you are caught out not believing in the current orthodoxy, you get shunned? It would be more stifling than living in a liberal democracy with a strong state apparatus.

Utopian communities historically collapse. The only ones that tend to survive have ethno-religious bases (Kibbutz, Amish) to their organisation - which specifically preclude open ended tolerance. I don't see how someone spends ten years in (state funded) higher education could come up with this nonsense and think it could work any different.

 

[RobbieK]

Like a tribal council to decide issues?

Maybe - it really depends on how that tribal council is making its decisions.

This is a pretty good overview of consensus decision making processes, talking about some ways it can work, some issues that need to be addressed, etc: https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

There isn't just one way of doing it, and it really is up to a community to make its own decisions about what is going to work and be appropriate for them.

 

[Taylor]

There isn't just one way of doing it, and it really is up to a community to make its own decisions about what is going to work and be appropriate for them.

This is how our current society works.

Perhaps you need a caveat on your sentence that should later generations feel the system doesn't work for them in that moment in their lives they should turn away and create a new one that can later turn into the same thing for their grand children to decide isn't them in a quest for self identity (which is where all of this comes from, from those finding their identity in the other or those finding a purpose in supporting those who don't have a voice and the validation being in a group of like minded people brings to that choice).

 

[RobbieK]

I'm sure you do. How many in total? Enough to keep your society running? Any of them work on Sydney's light rail, the Barangaroo project, any engineering projects at scale? Or just a couple of carpenters and electricians?

Maybe I only know enough for a small community to form. I guess that is an issue for me, not you, but I appreciate your concern.

It's not one potential norm - it's any potential norm. You have established that norms will change at post. Why would anyone want to live in a society where you are having norms 'instilled' in you by a community at a rate where if you are caught out not believing in the current orthodoxy, you get shunned?

Again, you are hung up on being shunned. It is just one of many ways a society might want to enforce a norm. And, in an anarchist community, the way these decisions are made is placed squarely in the hands of the community themselves.

All communities instill norms in its members, if you want to avoid that you should probably go live in a cave by yourself in the wilderness. When you are making consensus based decisions in an anarchist community it is the community itself that is determining for itself the rate of change and the consequences. If it makes bad decisions about that, the community could fold, that is true, but the key is that the community is a free association of people that choose to live with each other. They can also choose to separate if they decide they no longer want to do that.

Utopian communities historically collapse. I don't see how someone spends ten years in (state funded) higher education could come up with this nonsense.

All communities historically collapse. So we should stop trying to do better?

People in higher education study all sorts of things that you might not think have directly practical applications to your life. That doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile. In my field, political theory and political philosophy, there are two general areas of work. One is about describing how things currently work or have historically worked. The other is about thinking about how things could be. There is a lot of great work happening in Australian universities about deliberative models of democracy, for example. It is important to be critical about how we do things and think about what we could do better, even if the likelihood of a large-scale community of the type I am describing being formed is low.

 

[King Brown]

Maybe I only know enough for a small community to form. I guess that is an issue for me, not you, but I appreciate your concern.

Why isn't this community being formed?

Again, you are hung up on being shunned. It is just one of many ways a society might want to enforce a norm. And, in an anarchist community, the way these decisions are made is placed squarely in the hands of the community themselves.

There are many ways, a lot of them bad. How does the community defend against descending into barbarism?

All communities instill norms in its members, if you want to avoid that you should probably go live in a cave by yourself in the wilderness.

The choice shouldn't be between creeping interpersonal totalitarianism as you advocate, and Ted Kaczynski.

When you are making consensus based decisions in an anarchist community it is the community itself that is determining for itself the rate of change and the consequences. If it makes bad decisions about that, the community could fold, that is true, but the key is that the community is a free association of people that choose to live with each other. They can also choose to separate if they decide they no longer want to do that.

You are basically describing nothing here. It is Goldilocks as political theory.

All communities historically collapse. So we should stop trying to do better?

I think we can do better without denying objective realities.

People in higher education study all sorts of things that you might not think have directly practical applications to your life.

It is absurd that someone who spends more than half their life in state funded education would come up with 'abolish the state'. Where would you be without it?

 

[RobbieK]

This is how our current society works.

Perhaps you need a caveat on your sentence that should later generations feel the system doesn't work for them in that moment in their lives they should turn away and create a new one that can later turn into the same thing for their grand children to decide isn't them in a quest for self identity (which is where all of this comes from, from those finding their identity in the other or those finding a purpose in supporting those who don't have a voice and the validation being in a group of like minded people brings to that choice).

It does and it doesn't. We live in a hierarchical system which favours majority rule over consensus based decision making, rendering many people separate from decision making functions that have a direct effect on their lives and powerless to be properly involved in those decisions. We have an electoral system that overwhelmingly favours two-party rule that renders many electorates foregone conclusions with limited or no consideration made to minority views. A lot of people end up alienated from the political process.

Now, you might argue that this is a necessary evil when we are dealing with a society at the scale of a country of 22 million. Maybe it is necessary and the kind of society I'm talking about only functions on a smaller scale. That doesn't mean it isn't worth thinking about alternative ways of doing things and it doesn't mean that couldn't inform improvements to our current system to make things more democratic.

I think that caveat is unnecessary. Of course the community is continually making decisions about how the community makes decisions. Over time it is unlikely for that to remain unchanged.

 

[Taylor]

It does and it doesn't. We live in a hierarchical system which favours majority rule over consensus based decision making, rendering many people separate from decision making functions that have a direct effect on their lives and powerless to be properly involved in those decisions. We have an electoral system that overwhelmingly favours two-party rule that renders many electorates foregone conclusions with limited or no consideration made to minority views. A lot of people end up alienated from the political process.

Now, you might argue that this is a necessary evil when we are dealing with a society at the scale of a country of 22 million. Maybe it is necessary and the kind of society I'm talking about only functions on a smaller scale. That doesn't mean it isn't worth thinking about alternative ways of doing things and it doesn't mean that couldn't inform improvements to our current system to make things more democratic.

I think that caveat is unnecessary. Of course the community is continually making decisions about how the community makes decisions. Over time it is unlikely for that to remain unchanged.

Majority rule over consensus is how any decision is made. I don't think humanity is built to handle the concept of wide ranging consensus on all issues, otherwise we wouldn't have divorce - people who share the exact same world because they live in the same house can't agree on everything let alone moving that discussion to encompass the whole street.

You're relying on a maturity and selflessness that I don't think lives in humanity when we aren't living in a plentiful world where all required needs and most desired wants are met already.

As soon as money gets tight, relationships break. As soon as the food gets short, consensus will fail. We all agree to live lesser and lesser, that's workable. Until Ted who works ten hours a day starts asking why he is pulling more than his weight. The discussion then falls into which jobs are important, which degrades into someone having to do the least important jobs, which degrades into that person or people feeling marginalised and unfairly treated even though they all agreed that job was the least important but someone had to do it.

Humanity needs purpose and achievement. Egalitarian societies usually forget that when someone is assigned to clean the toilet.

 

[RobbieK]

Why isn't this community being formed?

Because it is very difficult to create an autonomous community outside of the influence of the State without the coercive apparatus of the State shutting you down?

The choice shouldn't be between creeping interpersonal totalitarianism as you advocate, and Ted Kaczynski.

A community of people coming up with a group of shared principles with which to live together by consensus-based processes, a community which gives a member freedom to join or leave as they see fit, is totalitarianism? It is the opposite of totalitarianism.

I think we can do better without denying objective realities.

It is absurd that someone who spends more than half their life in state funded education would come up with 'abolish the state'. Where would you be without it?[/QUOTE]

Social reality changes. Sometimes in major ways. Sometimes quickly.

If we were having this discussion 500 years ago, I wonder what you would say to someone who suggested the feudal order needed to be overturned? To just get with reality and be thankful for the benevolence of their betters who provide the necessary order for the functioning of society?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Ok, so we agree that bigotry and anarchism are incompatible. It's great to have some common ground.

Bigotry in an anarchist context must be state compelled enforcements.

Anarchists are capable of bigotry, in that they exhibit complete intolerance of statism.

The issue then becomes the matter of defining what is considered to be bigotry. This isn't static, it is up to a community to continually reassess and redefine its values.

So, when I say this:

"It is up to an anarchist community to work out for itself its expectations of behaviour for its members and the consequences for failure to live up to those standards."

It's impossible to be an anarchist and not respect other peoples free choices as long as they do not impose force on others.

Beyond this, there's nothing left to discuss.

I really don't see what your problem is. I made no mention of government policy. I'm talking about a community engaged in building a consensus about what is an appropriate way for them to live with each other. That community will then need to come to decisions about what to do when members of the community fail to live up to those standards or threaten the ongoing function of the community with divisive acts. There is wide range of potential responses.

Can you explain to me where I am going wrong, here?

Yes. An anarchist has no core compulsion to live a communal existence.

How do you think an anarchist community could/should function if the community wasn't making these decisions about expectations for its members and there wasn't consequences for failure to meet those expectations?

It should be based upon it's own set of agreed principles as long as they embrace core anarchist values.

If a member disregards a core philosophical requirement or an agreed set of terms, then by logical extension they are no longer an anarchist, or a member of that community.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Wouldn't an anarchist community mob rule anyway?

In a word, no.

Mob rule implies enforcement against others by a ruling core.

This is completely alien to anarchist philosophy.

 

[twotooto]

Anarchy discussion needs own thread.

 

[RobbieK]

Bigotry in an anarchist context must be state compelled enforcements.

Anarchists are capable of bigotry, in that they exhibit complete intolerance of statism.

Then we disagree. There are clearly examples of bigotry that can exist within an anarchist community that are state compelled enforcements. Racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, transphobia... all can exist without state compelled enforcements. All are still forms of bigotry.

It's impossible to be an anarchist and not respect other peoples free choices as long as they do not impose force on others.

Beyond this, there's nothing left to discuss.

The idea that physical violence is the only kind of oppression that anarchists would seek to limit and that they would accept any other forms of oppression short of the imposition of force or that they would not seek to act against that oppression until force is used is a very limited understanding of what anarchism can mean.

Yes. An anarchist has no core compulsion to live a communal existence.

They are going to live a completely solitary life?

It should be based upon it's own set of agreed principles as long as they embrace core anarchist values.

If a member disregards a core philosophical requirement or an agreed set of terms, then by logical extension they are no longer an anarchist, or a member of that community.

The irony in all of this is the rigidily dogmatic view you have about what is and isn't anarchism. I don't think there is much more point engaging with you on this much more. You have a particularly authoritarian approach to defining the concept when the history of anarchist philosophy is quite heterogenous. You might not like certain forms of anarchism, but that doesn't mean they aren't anarchism.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Then we disagree. There are clearly examples of bigotry that can exist within an anarchist community that are state compelled enforcements. Racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, transphobia... all can exist without state compelled enforcements. All are still forms of bigotry.

The compulsion of thought control is the ultimate form of bigotry.

Again, I don't think you actually understand basic anarchist core tenets.

The idea that physical violence is the only kind of oppression that anarchists would seek to limit and that they would accept any other forms of oppression short of the imposition of force or that they would not seek to act against that oppression until force is used is a very limited understanding of what anarchism can mean.

I stated "force".

An anarchist does not accept the oppression of others, based upon their rational thinking.

However, "oppression" must be analysed with a reasonable mind, otherwise the fundamental anarchist principles of freedom of speech and thought would become unreasonably compromised.

They are going to live a completely solitary life?

If they choose.

Can a person claim to be an anarchist AND be compelled to live by community rules?

The irony in all of this is the rigidily dogmatic view you have about what is and isn't anarchism. I don't think there is much more point engaging with you on this much more. You have a particularly authoritarian approach to defining the concept when the history of anarchist philosophy is quite heterogenous. You might not like certain forms of anarchism, but that doesn't mean they aren't anarchism.

Authoritarian? LOL. You are the one attempting to utilise group pressures to enforce ethical codes.

I place my hand high up in the air in relation to your claims that I am a "dogmatic" (Greek: dogmatikos, “pertaining to doctrine.”) as anyone that is overtly flexible about crucial core anarchist principles cannot by way of logical extension, be an anarchist.

 

[Run n Spread]

Majority rule over consensus is how any decision is made. I don't think humanity is built to handle the concept of wide ranging consensus on all issues, otherwise we wouldn't have divorce - people who share the exact same world because they live in the same house can't agree on everything let alone moving that discussion to encompass the whole street.

You're relying on a maturity and selflessness that I don't think lives in humanity when we aren't living in a plentiful world where all required needs and most desired wants are met already.

As soon as money gets tight, relationships break. As soon as the food gets short, consensus will fail. We all agree to live lesser and lesser, that's workable. Until Ted who works ten hours a day starts asking why he is pulling more than his weight. The discussion then falls into which jobs are important, which degrades into someone having to do the least important jobs, which degrades into that person or people feeling marginalised and unfairly treated even though they all agreed that job was the least important but someone had to do it.

Humanity needs purpose and achievement. Egalitarian societies usually forget that when someone is assigned to clean the toilet.

In a truly egalitarian society people would clean up after themselves. Yet how do you enforce it?