Stupid Question about Anarchism: What if they choose poorly?

[two sheds]

Wouldn't it be a bit hit and miss if you've got much smaller communities? Don't get me wrong I would like to see decisions being made at the lowest level but I think you'd have more risk of people being picked on with smaller communities (or the same risk but if lots of smaller communities are setting their own rules, more risk of actual approved-of discrimination).

Some communities might want capital punishment for example, or to discriminate against particular minorities. I'm not sure that's healthy.

 

[Shechemite]

Is there not a tension between medical expertise and community regulation?

 

[Biscuitician]

Is there not a tension between medical expertise and community regulation?

That depends on the regulation surely?

 

[BigTom]

With small communities are you not more likely to get demagogues whipping up hatred against a particular section of society. So pretty well what happens now but with less protection for the minorities?

Protection would come from within our own community and from other communities, rather than relying on the whims of the state/capital for protection.

There's also a point to be made that in anarchist society, power would be evenly spread so there's no structures for a demagogue to use to gain the power they would need for their hatred to have an actual outlet.
And something about how capital finds division useful, this would no longer be a pressure in anarchism/socialism so the concept of minorities is no longer / less relevant - certainly arguments are often made that racism, sexism, homophobia would not exist in socialism because there'd be no group that would gain advantage from them. During the transition from capitalism to socialism these ideas would wither away. That's a bit naive for me but also I think these are things we are moving past anyway so it's not inconceivable that we'd be in a world without them by the time we get to socialism.

 

[Shechemite]

That depends on the regulation surely?

In what way?

You don't think there's a tension between the concept of having medical 'experts' with special 'understanding' (and with the subsequent power that that entails) and having that power regulated by 'the community' which would surely include laymen.

 

[Biscuitician]

In what way?

You don't think there's a tension between the concept of having medical 'experts' with special 'understanding' (and with the subsequent power that that entails) and having that power regulated by 'the community' which would surely include laymen.

What power would it entail?

Doctors have specialist knowledge, but that doesn't mean they have power over society.

 

[Shechemite]

What power would it entail?

Doctors have specialist knowledge, but that doesn't mean they have power over society.

Is this a troll?

The power over those deemed 'incapable'. As we had discussed unthread.

 

[Biscuitician]

Is this a troll?

The power over those deemed 'incapable'. As we had discussed unthread.

Don't call me a troll.

Anarchism doesn't reject all claims to authority, only those that cannot be justified. If there is a justifiable case to be made for power over someone less capable then it would valid. That authority extends no further.

What is the problem that you foresee happening here?

 

[red devil]

I had a conversation with someone who called themselves a 'minarchist' (anarcho capitalist). Bizarre people, but it leads me to ask, what happens if an anarchist community makes bad choices?

So there was the bakery in the US that refused to cater to a gay couple. Their reasoning was nonsense of course, based purely on religious bigotry. But how would an anarchist community address this issue? We aren't going to get rid of such bigotry and divest ourselves of the poisonous influence of things like religion any time soon, so if, somehow, we moved to an anarchist society, how would you adress bad decision making like this?

What about citizens who wanted the right not to vaccinate their kids?

What if they wanted capitalism? Or go back to it? Surely these situations would just destroy the community.

unfortunately, this is the inadequacy of anarchism as a political philosophy.
the marxist anslysis is yhat society moves thtough stages look up wikipedia rather ghan posting hrre prrhaps
socialism is a transitionary phase between capitalism and communism
we sre now in the late stages of capitalism
the future is yours
humans live at most for 100 years
if capitalism is transitioning to soccialism which it iss
tyou will never se communism so you will be glad i suspect

 

[Biscuitician]

unfortunately, this is the inadequacy of anarchism as a political philosophy.
the marxist anslysis is yhat society moves thtough stages look up wikipedia rather ghan posting hrre prrhaps
socialism is a transitionary phase between capitalism and communism
we sre now in the late stages of capitalism
the future is yours
humans live at most for 100 years
if capitalism is transitioning to soccialism which it iss
tyou will never se communism so you will be glad i suspect

What point are you trying to make?

 

[Jon-of-arc]

This thread has just highlighted to me that the idea of an anarchist society is almost a complete impossibility. Responsibility is required, in the form of agreed codes of conduct, and policy & process, and wherever responsibility is delegated to ensure correct implementation of said codes, processes etc, society has to authorise authority. Authority to make decisions affecting others.

What's the difference between that and what we have now? It wouldn't work. It couldn't work.

 

[Shechemite]

Don't call me a troll.

Anarchism doesn't reject all claims to authority, only those that cannot be justified. If there is a justifiable case to be made for power over someone less capable then it would valid. That authority extends no further.

What is the problem that you foresee happening here?

Then don't behave like one.

You state that those with 'understanding of mental health' should have power over those deemed incapable, then dispute that medical professionals have power. You haven't asserted how this power would be regulated apart from vague comments about the 'community'. You state there need not be an Act or such, and therefore no written code describing the rights of those deemed incapable, and describing how those with 'understanding' should and must behave.

You can't see how this would leave those who are 'less capable' (what an expression) in a most grim situation.

Liberty for all. Well almost all.

 

[8ball]

Liberty for all. Well almost all.

The ones left over, are they in self-managing gulags?

 

[Shechemite]

The ones left over, are they in self-managing gulags?

Being locked up, slapped about and inappropriately/over medicated for their own good it sounds like

 

[Biscuitician]

Then don't behave like one.

You state that those with 'understanding of mental health' should have power over those deemed incapable, then dispute that medical professionals have power. You haven't asserted how this power would be regulated apart from vague comments about the 'community'. You state there need not be an Act or such, and therefore no written code describing the rights of those deemed incapable, and describing how those with 'understanding' should and must behave.

You can't see how this would leave those who are 'less capable' (what an expression) in a most grim situation.

Liberty for all. Well almost all.

Noone was behaving like a troll, we're having a conversation.

I said that those who are expert in mental health, those with training and knowledge, should have authority to determine how those who need their expertise are to be treated. I did not dispute that medical professionals have power, I said that the aforementioned authority would not extend beyond their purview. They would not have indiscriminate or unjustified authority. That is, to my understanding, fully in keeping with anarchist thinking.

Now, if you have a better alternative I am open to hearing it. I do not believe that it would be practical, never mind possible, for every single citizen to have the same level fo knowledge and training in medical matters, for example, as those working in mental health. I have also not said that exercising that authority means ignoring the wishes of the patient nor those close to him. It is a relationship, just as it is now. Except within an anarchist society there are no authorities or hierarchies beyond this that either side can appeal to. If the patient and his representatives feel that this particular expert is not acting responsibly or compassionately then they can take that up with the community and have their case heard by a wider panel.

In the end this is a question of responsibility and humans need to learn how to be responsible, to each other and to themselves. That is all anarchism is. It doesn't guarantee that people don't make mistakes or exercise bad judgement. That's a fantasy. It simply asks that people take responsibility and work as equals, as much as is possible and as much as is reasonable.

I can't give you an exact model for how mental health care would be provided under a different ssytem than we have. We haven't lived in such a system. When I refer to the community, I refer to those with whom the patient and the expert exist and to whom they are answerable. I do believe that humans can work together to solve problems and, free of unjustified hierarchical structures and authorities such as nation states and capitalism, we can address these issues clearly.

That is the best answer I can give you. If you wish to call me a troll then we can end the conversation there.

 

[Biscuitician]

This thread has just highlighted to me that the idea of an anarchist society is almost a complete impossibility. Responsibility is required, in the form of agreed codes of conduct, and policy & process, and wherever responsibility is delegated to ensure correct implementation of said codes, processes etc, society has to authorise authority. Authority to make decisions affecting others.

What's the difference between that and what we have now? It wouldn't work. It couldn't work.

Our current society infantilises us, teaches us that we need representation and authority, in the form of a state/government/political party/david cameron, to be responsible for us. That we cannot be responsible for ourselves. I find the idea of anarchism, as I understand it, deeply fulfilling. There is no perfect society because we all have to get along somehow. So we negotiate as best we can, and I think anarchism offers that possibility. It doesn't mean that there can be no rules, guidelines, or even authority. It means that we freely come together to build those relationships and structures horizontally and for ourselves.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I had a conversation with someone who called themselves a 'minarchist' (anarcho capitalist). Bizarre people, but it leads me to ask, what happens if an anarchist community makes bad choices?

Maybe the way to state this is 'what happens when an anarchist community makes bad choices?'

One thing history and all of our experience teaches us, is that human beings are fallible. Human beings make mistakes, they make bad choices.

People professing anarchist beliefs, living in an anarchist community, will make bad choices on occasion, because that is what human beings do.

When they do - just like it is for all humans - they will have to live with the consequences of their choices.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Our current society infantilises us, teaches us that we need representation and authority, in the form of a state/government/political party/david cameron, to be responsible for us. That we cannot be responsible for ourselves. I find the idea of anarchism, as I understand it, deeply fulfilling. There is no perfect society because we all have to get along somehow. So we negotiate as best we can, and I think anarchism offers that possibility. It doesn't mean that there can be no rules, guidelines, or even authority. It means that we freely come together to build those relationships and structures horizontally and for ourselves.

OK, on a country wide level, how do we delegate work for hospitals, infrastructure, collect resources to ensure that each has enough of what they need? You need someone in charge (of loads of things, but the ones I mention above would surely exist in any anarchist state as I would accept being worthy of the name). It may turn out that one (or more) of these people is inept, corrupt, or some type of wrong'un. How do you keep people in such posts accountable, without resorting to some type of representative democracy? You can't have a vote on every issue.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Also, your idea of anarchy, from that passage I just quoted, sounds a little bit freeman on the land (although less individualistic) - just opt out of the systems in place that you don't like, because David Cameron, and suddenly all problems with western style rep democracy (with its bureaucracy, free market economics on speed, voter disenfranchisement, I could go on), would suddenly disappear, when in some cases problems would likely be made worse. All because man's don't like The Man telling them what to do, man.

 

[BigTom]

OK, on a country wide level, how do we delegate work for hospitals, infrastructure, collect resources to ensure that each has enough of what they need? You need someone in charge (of loads of things, but the ones I mention above would surely exist in any anarchist state as I would accept being worthy of the name). It may turn out that one (or more) of these people is inept, corrupt, or some type of wrong'un. How do you keep people in such posts accountable, without resorting to some type of representative democracy? You can't have a vote on every issue.

People are delegated to do tasks/projects. Try to keep away from jobs but where there are long projects or jobs make sense, then delegates are recallable by their community. Other forms of accountability will still exist but that is what I would see as the main change.

 

[Biscuitician]

OK, on a country wide level, how do we delegate work for hospitals, infrastructure, collect resources to ensure that each has enough of what they need? You need someone in charge (of loads of things, but the ones I mention above would surely exist in any anarchist state as I would accept being worthy of the name). It may turn out that one (or more) of these people is inept, corrupt, or some type of wrong'un. How do you keep people in such posts accountable, without resorting to some type of representative democracy? You can't have a vote on every issue.

Firstly, and at the risk of being massively disingenuous, I don't have a direct answer. It would be up to the community to decide. It's not for me to assume authority. Now, that said, in case this invites accusations of analysis paralysis I think most of these are questions to which we already have answers, it's just a question of organising things more effectively. Without bosses and wage labour there's no need to have huge long hours, crazy shift patterns etc. Work loads can be shared amongst citizens more fairly. This creates a positive feedback loop in society where people feel more engaged, more in control, and less stressed.

My initial question was in respect of the practicality of having a vote on every issue. But that I think has been addressed.

The issue of people being in charge comes down, again, to valid authority. So who plans the construction of a hospital is the person with the expertise, which itself can be discussed by the community. Noone gets to just decide 'i'm going to build a hospital, screw you!'. But his authority is based solely on his knowledge of architecture and the remit extends only as far as getting the job done. It doesn't give him or her the right to control other people's lives and people can freely associate as they wish. If that begs the question, what happens if noone wants to freely associate, then the simple answer is the people don't get their hospital. That then addresses the notion of responsibility I mentioned above. If people need a hospital then people need to work together to create one, but that will be done without exploitation and through people coming together to address a need, without exploiting others.

However, you are also begging a question when you refer to 'country wide level'? How big is the community? Will countries even exist?

 

[Biscuitician]

Also, your idea of anarchy, from that passage I just quoted, sounds a little bit freeman on the land (although less individualistic) - just opt out of the systems in place that you don't like, because David Cameron, and suddenly all problems with western style rep democracy (with its bureaucracy, free market economics on speed, voter disenfranchisement, I could go on), would suddenly disappear, when in some cases problems would likely be made worse. All because man's don't like The Man telling them what to do, man.

Anarchism isn't about opting out of systems, it's about placing the burden of proof on those making the claim for those system: eg capitalism, state government, etc. If that claim cannot be justified, then those systems should be rejected. The problem is that we don't see things this way, which is what I mean by infantilisation. We are conditioned to believe these systems are necessary and for our own good because otherwise...chaos!

I understand the comparison to FotL people. But the fundamental difference, as I see it, is that they merely want to opt out. They want to appeal to some legalese woo woo, which is based on a tragic misunderstanding of the law. They think if they say magic phrases like "i don't stand under that statement" or some other legalese nonsense they can force a judge or a cop or any agent of any existing authority they dislike to give in, like some form of hypnotic suggestion. They aren't interested in social change, they are reactionaries who are by and large interested in getting out of paying parking tickets or being done for growing weed. They want to play the system, not change it.

 

[red devil]

Firstly, and at the risk of being massively disingenuous, I don't have a direct answer. It would be up to the community to decide. It's not for me to assume authority. Now, that said, in case this invites accusations of analysis paralysis I think most of these are questions to which we already have answers, it's just a question of organising things more effectively. Without bosses and wage labour there's no need to have huge long hours, crazy shift patterns etc. Work loads can be shared amongst citizens more fairly. This creates a positive feedback loop in society where people feel more engaged, more in control, and less stressed.

My initial question was in respect of the practicality of having a vote on every issue. But that I think has been addressed.

The issue of people being in charge comes down, again, to valid authority. So who plans the construction of a hospital is the person with the expertise, which itself can be discussed by the community. Noone gets to just decide 'i'm going to build a hospital, screw you!'. But his authority is based solely on his knowledge of architecture and the remit extends only as far as getting the job done. It doesn't give him or her the right to control other people's lives and people can freely associate as they wish. If that begs the question, what happens if noone wants to freely associate, then the simple answer is the people don't get their hospital. That then addresses the notion of responsibility I mentioned above. If people need a hospital then people need to work together to create one, but that will be done without exploitation and through people coming together to address a need, without exploiting others.

However, you are also begging a question when you refer to 'country wide level'? How big is the community? Will countries even exist?

contries wont exist but you should assume authority

 

[seventh bullet]

Will there be specialists and 'experts' in such a society?

 

[red devil]

Will there be specialists and 'experts' in such a society?

yes, you are welcome

 

[seventh bullet]

?

 

[Biscuitician]

Will there be specialists and 'experts' in such a society?

I don't see why not. People won't stop learning, training or specialising.

 

[seventh bullet]

I don't see why not. People won't stop learning, training or specialising.

That's one problem with capitalism, no? The capture and control/uses of knowledge in the making/ordering of things. Another utopian conception would involve a society in which individual talents are realised to their fullest but in well-rounded people in relation to one another, where hierarchical structures in which specialisms in this society play a significant part in dividing people would no longer exist. Narrow thinking about specialists, experts etc are a thing of the past.

 

[Biscuitician]

That's one problem with capitalism, no? The capture and control/uses of knowledge in the making/ordering of things. Another utopian conception would involve a society in which individual talents are realised to their fullest but in well-rounded people in relation to one another, where hierarchical structures in which specialisms in this society play a significant part in dividing people would no longer exist. Narrow thinking about specialists, experts etc are a thing of the past.

I would say that in an anarchist society anyone can choose to learn a particular field, no barrier to entry - tuition fees etc.

But that doesn't mean everyone would learn to be a doctor, or would want to. Thus some people would have that knowledge and others not.

So in that sense there are experts and there are others that do not have that knowledge.

Those with the knowledge have a legitimate authority as explained. That is in keeping with anarchism to my understanding.

I don't think this is a narrow view, it's simply practical.

 

[seventh bullet]

That isn't really what I was getting at. The understanding of what an expert, a specialist is now will cease to be relevant as the division of labour under capitalism will gotten rid of. The relative privilege, status, place and potential for managerial positions within a hierarchy, and the power it confers on individuals separated from one another according to their tasks in the economy won't exist. That doesn't mean individuals won't excel at different things according to the full and free development of their particular talents, or those talents will be funneled down one narrow route, or never realised at all for the great majority under capitalism. Even the Communists grasped this while dealing with their own stratified society under the conditions of state capitalism, and 'full communism' (as they understood it) theorised into the far-flung future.