i am afraid that my worries can not just be hand waved away as if not part of human nature.
I see compounding problems in a purely bottom-up society. You can’t expect everyone to agree on all possible decisions at the outset and assume nothing will change. Human contrarianism alone makes it likely that decision “jams” will happen often, and I don’t see the incentive to compromise when a decision benefits the majority but weakens one commune. Why would the “damned” commune agree?
You cite anthropologists claiming the tragedy of the commons doesn’t occur outside capitalism. But from what i have seen, they don’t say it as such an absolute. At best, they show it can be less common or better mitigated in certain structures, but even then, it requires enforcement like informal peer pressure, which is the most benign but it’s also the weakest form of control.
Historicaly, the tragedy of the commons isn’t a capitalist invention; it’s a human tendency, though capitalism can amplify it. but societies have fallen due to abuse of the resources, extinctions of hunted animals and in fighting, fracturing, falling to the warlord without capitalistic influence.
You also point to northern Syria, but they do have the Asayish as an internal security force enforcing the will of the majority. That’s still a form of control over dissent and provides that same issues as a police force.
Finally, large public works like hospitals require hundreds of specialized roles to build and hundreds more to operate. I don’t see how you achieve that scale and coordination through purely nested, bottom-up communes without some binding authority. we can’t even get an agreement on vaccines and public schooling funding, or if children should be fed. and wile you could argue that these are effected by capitalism, the issue is primarily he different values of different individuals.
Oh I see. You weren’t seeking information, you were seeking a debate. I have to admit I feel a little manipulated right now. I didn’t reply to you for a day or so because I wanted to give you a comment that was both helpfully descriptive and reasonably concise. I spent about an hour of my time and energy on that comment.
I’m not interested in a debate about anarchism. It’s a participatory system driven by material need. The potential utility of trying to convince a liberal subject of it’s use if they’re currently opposed is near zero. It’s a waste of time, energy, and spirit. I do wish you’d made a better effort from the outset to indicate your intent. The world is full of staunch anti-anarchists and the internet is not where they’ll be convinced otherwise.
If you feel like this is me losing the debate… Then yes, I just lost the debate. Tell your friends that you beat an anarchist in a debate about anarchism. Link them to these comments as your trophy. You’re a winner.
i didn’t look to win an argument. it’s obvious capitalism has problems. seemingly needing to be completely upturned every few decades. but my fear was that anarchic systems would either require fighting human nature, which is a non starter, or would require such a small grouping, that the large projects we rely on would no longer be feesable, not to mention that people would also be tied to the land as surfs. the discussion around this critiqued capitalisms monopoly on violence, and i just don’t see any way around needing such a group, such as with North Syria.
Your reply was the first thing I read when I woke up this morning, my reply was the first thing I wrote. Maybe I was too quick to be crestfallen.
I did spend two long paragraphs describing the most common and proven way that anarchism scales. In a way that ties in and leans on some of the best aspects of human nature (Human nature is not a static thing, it’s always contextual and conditional). Hopefully that wasn’t too wordy and winded, I was specifically looking to make it concise while remaining decently foundational.
That organizational model is more than enough to manage the largest projects that anarchism pursues. But anarchism tends to not pursue projects of the same megalithic scale as hierarchical civilization though, as 1) many mega projects tend to be the result of desires for centralization and aggrandizement, either of an individual or an institution and 2) in a word full of hierarchy, anarchism often doesn’t get the room to do so.
I’m not sure where the conception that anarchism ties people to the land like serfs comes from. What leads you to think that? Working anarchism definitely makes people directly responsible for their land and in the consequence of it’s care, but it doesn’t prevent travel or migration. The primary concern of anarchism is autonomy, it’s not anarchism if you can’t leave.
i am afraid that my worries can not just be hand waved away as if not part of human nature.
I see compounding problems in a purely bottom-up society. You can’t expect everyone to agree on all possible decisions at the outset and assume nothing will change. Human contrarianism alone makes it likely that decision “jams” will happen often, and I don’t see the incentive to compromise when a decision benefits the majority but weakens one commune. Why would the “damned” commune agree?
You cite anthropologists claiming the tragedy of the commons doesn’t occur outside capitalism. But from what i have seen, they don’t say it as such an absolute. At best, they show it can be less common or better mitigated in certain structures, but even then, it requires enforcement like informal peer pressure, which is the most benign but it’s also the weakest form of control.
Historicaly, the tragedy of the commons isn’t a capitalist invention; it’s a human tendency, though capitalism can amplify it. but societies have fallen due to abuse of the resources, extinctions of hunted animals and in fighting, fracturing, falling to the warlord without capitalistic influence.
You also point to northern Syria, but they do have the Asayish as an internal security force enforcing the will of the majority. That’s still a form of control over dissent and provides that same issues as a police force.
Finally, large public works like hospitals require hundreds of specialized roles to build and hundreds more to operate. I don’t see how you achieve that scale and coordination through purely nested, bottom-up communes without some binding authority. we can’t even get an agreement on vaccines and public schooling funding, or if children should be fed. and wile you could argue that these are effected by capitalism, the issue is primarily he different values of different individuals.
Oh I see. You weren’t seeking information, you were seeking a debate. I have to admit I feel a little manipulated right now. I didn’t reply to you for a day or so because I wanted to give you a comment that was both helpfully descriptive and reasonably concise. I spent about an hour of my time and energy on that comment.
I’m not interested in a debate about anarchism. It’s a participatory system driven by material need. The potential utility of trying to convince a liberal subject of it’s use if they’re currently opposed is near zero. It’s a waste of time, energy, and spirit. I do wish you’d made a better effort from the outset to indicate your intent. The world is full of staunch anti-anarchists and the internet is not where they’ll be convinced otherwise.
If you feel like this is me losing the debate… Then yes, I just lost the debate. Tell your friends that you beat an anarchist in a debate about anarchism. Link them to these comments as your trophy. You’re a winner.
i didn’t look to win an argument. it’s obvious capitalism has problems. seemingly needing to be completely upturned every few decades. but my fear was that anarchic systems would either require fighting human nature, which is a non starter, or would require such a small grouping, that the large projects we rely on would no longer be feesable, not to mention that people would also be tied to the land as surfs. the discussion around this critiqued capitalisms monopoly on violence, and i just don’t see any way around needing such a group, such as with North Syria.
there was no intention to deceive
Your reply was the first thing I read when I woke up this morning, my reply was the first thing I wrote. Maybe I was too quick to be crestfallen.
I did spend two long paragraphs describing the most common and proven way that anarchism scales. In a way that ties in and leans on some of the best aspects of human nature (Human nature is not a static thing, it’s always contextual and conditional). Hopefully that wasn’t too wordy and winded, I was specifically looking to make it concise while remaining decently foundational.
That organizational model is more than enough to manage the largest projects that anarchism pursues. But anarchism tends to not pursue projects of the same megalithic scale as hierarchical civilization though, as 1) many mega projects tend to be the result of desires for centralization and aggrandizement, either of an individual or an institution and 2) in a word full of hierarchy, anarchism often doesn’t get the room to do so.
I’m not sure where the conception that anarchism ties people to the land like serfs comes from. What leads you to think that? Working anarchism definitely makes people directly responsible for their land and in the consequence of it’s care, but it doesn’t prevent travel or migration. The primary concern of anarchism is autonomy, it’s not anarchism if you can’t leave.