I’m not even an anarchist but this is pretty easy to simply look at history and answer
It would be like most tribal societies throughout human history. Where small to even very large societal level groups rely upon a economic and social system of mutualism/reciprocity, central planning, and social standing.
People that are able and refuse to contribute would receive little beyond their basic needs, likely socially pilloried, or in extreme cases be asked to leave. And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.
Like the one thing almost every single human society we have had evidence for it’s social structure has had a version of the Golden Rule.
And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.
I think this is the part I get hung up on. The way this has historically been handled is lynchings. The town thinks you murdered those kids? They lynch you. The town drunk says he saw you doing devil worship? Lynched. You piss off someone with more social capital than you? Another lynching.
While I agree that this is self-ordering in some sense, I don’t find it to be morally acceptable. Justice requires systematics that anarchy simply can’t provide. And while no justice system is perfect, I think we can all agree that going back to lynchings is probably not the right direction.
I don’t think lynchings have been the only way human groups have dealt with crimes against innocents though, historically or presently.
And most of what you are talking about is behavior under capitalist or feudalist systems.
And most crime under those systems is born out of poverty.
I have not heard of the Zapatista’s engaging in routine lynchings for example. The biggest threats to them have not been irrational lynch parties inside their society, it had been the capitalist forces outside of it trying to violently conquer them.
And again, I am not an anarchist, so I feel weird trying to speak too deeply past my own understanding of their positions or things I have some crossover beliefs in as well.
It’s worth noting that the Zapatistas aren’t an anarchist group and make no claim to being one. They do have a non-centralized leadership structure of elders who enforce a “restorative justice” system that forces people who perpetrate crimes to do community service. This does require a form of tribunal that local leaders manage.
But, to be clear, all this requires hierarchy, authority, and coercion in ways that most anarchists would reject. Which is the core of the issue.
Hmmm. I wonder how you achieve those things in an incredibly diverse scenario with millions/billions of people with varying desires. It’s almost like you’d have to create some form of government that relied on citizens voting, potentially through elected representatives. Almost like a democracy of some sort. So, not anarchism.
I don’t think many anarchists are arguing for societies comprised of a billion people…Almost like they are explicitly wanting to go in the opposite direction and eliminate such a state.
And just again for clarity, I am not an anarchist, but I also think it’s silly to get this worked up over an ideology it’s not even clear people have ever spent any time trying to understand in good faith.
I don’t think many anarchists are arguing for societies comprised of a billion people
Well…too fucking bad. There’s 8+ billion of us. And these “anarchists” use society’s infrastructure and social services. So as long as they stay plugged in, they can take their anarchism and practice it inside their own homes, which are plugged into a non-anarchist infrastructure.
I’m not that worked up. About as worked up as any ignorant person can make me, which typically maxes out at moderate annoyance. And as far as I’m concerned, anarchists are some of the most potently ignorant people around.
I’m not even an anarchist but this is pretty easy to simply look at history and answer
It would be like most tribal societies throughout human history. Where small to even very large societal level groups rely upon a economic and social system of mutualism/reciprocity, central planning, and social standing.
People that are able and refuse to contribute would receive little beyond their basic needs, likely socially pilloried, or in extreme cases be asked to leave. And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.
Like the one thing almost every single human society we have had evidence for it’s social structure has had a version of the Golden Rule.
I think this is the part I get hung up on. The way this has historically been handled is lynchings. The town thinks you murdered those kids? They lynch you. The town drunk says he saw you doing devil worship? Lynched. You piss off someone with more social capital than you? Another lynching.
While I agree that this is self-ordering in some sense, I don’t find it to be morally acceptable. Justice requires systematics that anarchy simply can’t provide. And while no justice system is perfect, I think we can all agree that going back to lynchings is probably not the right direction.
I don’t think lynchings have been the only way human groups have dealt with crimes against innocents though, historically or presently.
And most of what you are talking about is behavior under capitalist or feudalist systems.
And most crime under those systems is born out of poverty.
I have not heard of the Zapatista’s engaging in routine lynchings for example. The biggest threats to them have not been irrational lynch parties inside their society, it had been the capitalist forces outside of it trying to violently conquer them.
And again, I am not an anarchist, so I feel weird trying to speak too deeply past my own understanding of their positions or things I have some crossover beliefs in as well.
It’s worth noting that the Zapatistas aren’t an anarchist group and make no claim to being one. They do have a non-centralized leadership structure of elders who enforce a “restorative justice” system that forces people who perpetrate crimes to do community service. This does require a form of tribunal that local leaders manage.
But, to be clear, all this requires hierarchy, authority, and coercion in ways that most anarchists would reject. Which is the core of the issue.
Hmmm. I wonder how you achieve those things in an incredibly diverse scenario with millions/billions of people with varying desires. It’s almost like you’d have to create some form of government that relied on citizens voting, potentially through elected representatives. Almost like a democracy of some sort. So, not anarchism.
I don’t think many anarchists are arguing for societies comprised of a billion people…Almost like they are explicitly wanting to go in the opposite direction and eliminate such a state.
And just again for clarity, I am not an anarchist, but I also think it’s silly to get this worked up over an ideology it’s not even clear people have ever spent any time trying to understand in good faith.
Well…too fucking bad. There’s 8+ billion of us. And these “anarchists” use society’s infrastructure and social services. So as long as they stay plugged in, they can take their anarchism and practice it inside their own homes, which are plugged into a non-anarchist infrastructure.
I’m not that worked up. About as worked up as any ignorant person can make me, which typically maxes out at moderate annoyance. And as far as I’m concerned, anarchists are some of the most potently ignorant people around.