Stupid Question about Anarchism: What if they choose poorly?

[Biscuitician]

I agree.

All I was addressing was the "authority of reason". When one wishes to learn painting, one seeks a painter to learn from. That person has authority in the sense that he knows what he's talking about and you freely choose to submit to that authority for your own benefit.

Similarly when one is ill, one seeks the aiuthority of the doctor to whom one submits knowing they are more informed about medicine and you are motivated to cure yourself.

That's a far cry from the tyranny of current authorities, such as states and economies

 

[ViolentPanda]

What power would it entail?

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

Doctors as individuals have "specialist" knowledge, but relate to members of society on an individual level.

Doctors as members of a profession that is political as well as medical do have power over society - power that shapes policy, and shapes the understanding of the bases of policy. An example: For most of the 20th century, disability and disabled people was analysed through a medico-centric paradigm known as "the medical model". This saw disabilities as "diseases" in need of "treatment", rather than as impairments in need of amelioration. The result was the institutionalisation of hundreds of thousands of people because of physical or mental issues that, viewed from a non-medical perspective, were often completely amenable to social rather than medical intervention.

Even now that paradigm has been put to sleep, the power that "medicine", especially psychiatric medicine, has over people, is troubling.

 

[Biscuitician]

Doctors as individuals have "specialist" knowledge, but relate to members of society on an individual level.

Doctors as members of a profession that is political as well as medical do have power over society - power that shapes policy, and shapes the understanding of the bases of policy. An example: For most of the 20th century, disability and disabled people was analysed through a medico-centric paradigm known as "the medical model". This saw disabilities as "diseases" in need of "treatment", rather than as impairments in need of amelioration. The result was the institutionalisation of hundreds of thousands of people because of physical or mental issues that, viewed from a non-medical perspective, were often completely amenable to social rather than medical intervention.

Even now that paradigm has been put to sleep, the power that "medicine", especially psychiatric medicine, has over people, is troubling.

Sure, they have power in that fashion currently, because that's how current society works.

That doesn't need to be the case in anarchism because they would have no more or less power over society than anyone else and the rest of society would be as much a check against them as they would against any shared interests seeking to do their own thing.

Can you explain what you mean when you say medicine in quotes? Presumably you'd want to prescribe only that which is proven to work, or at least meets the burden of proof through peer review and evidence?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sure, they have power in that fashion currently, because that's how current society works.

That doesn't need to be the case in anarchism because they would have no more or less power over society than anyone else and the rest of society would be as much a check against them as they would against any shared interests seeking to do their own thing.

I was discussing what is happening now, as was, I believe MadeInBedlam . There's no sense in speculating on a possible anarchist future, because creating templates gets in the way of practical thinking and practice.

Can you explain what you mean when you say medicine in quotes? Presumably you'd want to prescribe only that which is proven to work, or at least meets the burden of proof through peer review and evidence?

I mean not just medicine as in those who practice it, but as the over-arching complex of related fields from academe to production of medical goods. People tend to forget that influences on medical thinking and practice is influenced from a lot of directions.

"Proven to work", under capitalism, isn't exactly a recommendation. A significant minority of "evidence-based medicine" in the UK is based on poorly-conducted research, or the result of Cochran reviews that don't necessarily pertain to research on the UK population. That's not to say that E-BM is a bad thing, but that currently the evidence base isn't as firm as it could be.

I'm a social scientist. I'm aware that medical research and peer review is even more compromised than the social sciences are, due to industry infiltration of research funding in academe - as well as govt's supine acceptance of this as the new status quo - and the control this gives over data publication, so I tend to turn a cynic's eye to social science research, as well as to that medico-scientific knowledge I'm able to understand. I'm not sure a burden of proof that has seen an ever-increasing number of withdrawn publications across science and medicine over the last 15 years or so, is a good gauge of much except the power of capitalism to influence even the most noble of endeavours negatively.

 

[Biscuitician]

"Proven to work", under capitalism, isn't exactly a recommendation. A significant minority of "evidence-based medicine" in the UK is based on poorly-conducted research, or the result of Cochran reviews that don't necessarily pertain to research on the UK population. That's not to say that E-BM is a bad thing, but that currently the evidence base isn't as firm as it could be.

I'm a social scientist. I'm aware that medical research and peer review is even more compromised than the social sciences are, due to industry infiltration of research funding in academe - as well as govt's supine acceptance of this as the new status quo - and the control this gives over data publication, so I tend to turn a cynic's eye to social science research, as well as to that medico-scientific knowledge I'm able to understand. I'm not sure a burden of proof that has seen an ever-increasing number of withdrawn publications across science and medicine over the last 15 years or so, is a good gauge of much except the power of capitalism to influence even the most noble of endeavours negatively.

I would need to see more evidence to agree or disagree. You might be correct, I don't know.

I do have a problem with where that kind of thinking can lead though. I've spoken to far too man people that while skeptical of authority and big pharma - and they are right to be - simply believe in pure snake oil, even dangerous ideas. Anti vaxers for example.

However I do think that the peer review process is the best method we have, even under capitalism.All I am saying, since I have no expertise in medical research, is that I would advocate for medicine that can be shown to work. Of course we must be aware that evidence can be manipulated by other interests, but the best check on that is the peer review process itself.

 

[mojo pixy]

In my experience of groups who claim some kind of horizontal power structure - I've been involved in a few over the years from punky squats to hippy communities to small left-wing political groups - there always (really always) develops a hierarchy. It's not imposed at first, but it develops based on strength of character / confidence, age / length of membership, expertise(s), relative wealth / ability to provide for the group, and reputation (the most subjective of all). Then it becomes an imposition on new members, and finally on everyone.

I believe rules / laws / the structures to maintain rules and laws actually serve to protect us from this instinct, and the problem with the rules, laws and structures only comes when they begin to serve it instead. I also think any human society needs to be supported by such rules, laws and structures and that this is why anarchism is basically impossible possible for humans just now.

That's quite an assertion to make, I know, but it's late and my view does sometimes change when I've had a really good day.

 

[BigTom]

In my experience of groups who claim some kind of horizontal power structure - I've been involved in a few over the years from punky squats to hippy communities to small left-wing political groups - there always (really always) develops a hierarchy. It's not imposed at first, but it develops based on strength of character / confidence, age / length of membership, expertise(s), relative wealth / ability to provide for the group, and reputation (the most subjective of all). Then it becomes an imposition on new members, and finally on everyone.

I believe rules / laws / the structures to maintain rules and laws actually serve to protect us from this instinct, and the problem with the rules, laws and structures only comes when they begin to serve it instead. I also think any human society needs to be supported by such rules, laws and structures and that this is why anarchism is basically impossible possible for humans just now.

That's quite an assertion to make, I know, but it's late and my view does sometimes change when I've had a really good day.

The tyranny of structurelessness is a very influential essay/idea. Not all anarchist organising methods are structureless and never have been, eg anarcho syndicalism, look at the IWW, plenty of structures there, but more elected and volunteer posts, more run at branch level than tuc unions

 

[Biscuitician]

In my experience of groups who claim some kind of horizontal power structure - I've been involved in a few over the years from punky squats to hippy communities to small left-wing political groups - there always (really always) develops a hierarchy. It's not imposed at first, but it develops based on strength of character / confidence, age / length of membership, expertise(s), relative wealth / ability to provide for the group, and reputation (the most subjective of all). Then it becomes an imposition on new members, and finally on everyone.

I believe rules / laws / the structures to maintain rules and laws actually serve to protect us from this instinct, and the problem with the rules, laws and structures only comes when they begin to serve it instead. I also think any human society needs to be supported by such rules, laws and structures and that this is why anarchism is basically impossible possible for humans just now.

That's quite an assertion to make, I know, but it's late and my view does sometimes change when I've had a really good day.

Admittedly i have no experience of this, it's just theory to me since i haven't the opportunity to participate in anything like this.

But wouldn't there be structures to prevent this? Wouldn't there be opposition from the community itself to this kind of influence?

 

[Pickman's model]

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?

of course people are going to make bad choices. it's how you deal with them that counts.

 

[Pickman's model]

Admittedly i have no experience of this, it's just theory to me since i haven't the opportunity to participate in anything like this.

But wouldn't there be structures to prevent this? Wouldn't there be opposition from the community itself to this kind of influence?

is there in your experience in each and every case opposition to new influences?

 

[mojo pixy]

But wouldn't there be structures to prevent this?

There may or may not be; the structures may only be a sop to political correctness while the real hierarchy goes on just as always. Newer groups are better IMO, probably because the age of a group is relevant to how set-in any hierarchy is.

Wouldn't there be opposition from the community itself to this kind of influence?

That's the point, in the end ''the community'' is just a bunch of people. People can easily be manipulated, individually and in groups, by anyone or any group who really really feels like trying. ''The community'' cannot prevent this except with good and well-maintained structures and regular self-examination, and I think that stuff necessarily entails formalised structures and processes.

 

[Biscuitician]

There may or may not be; the structures may only be a sop to political correctness while the real hierarchy goes on just as always. Newer groups are better IMO, probably because the age of a group is relevant to how set-in any hierarchy is.

That's the point, in the end ''the community'' is just a bunch of people. People can easily be manipulated, individually and in groups, by anyone or any group who really really feels like trying. ''The community'' cannot prevent this except with good and well-maintained structures and regular self-examination, and I think that stuff necessarily entails formalised structures and processes.

You would have to define what you mean by political correctness. This is a dog whistle term as far as I'm concerned often used by people with very questionable ideas.

Hierarchies would have to be addressed and dismantled if they are found to be illegitimate. If that doens't happen, then anarchism doesn't exist and the proponents there of are not doing a good enough job. That doesn't speak to the validity of anarchism, however.

Can people be easily manipulated? Well that's a claim. I won't dismiss it out of hand, but it would need to be explained. It is entirely possible that people, as they exist now, are socialised and conditioned toward hierarchy and the often unquestioned (or at least questioning within acceptable parameters - see Overton Window) assertion of authority. THis is how people come to believe that capitalism is simply reflective of human nature, or that human society cannot survive without these structures.

 

[mojo pixy]

You would have to define what you mean by political correctness. This is a dog whistle term as far as I'm concerned often used by people with very questionable ideas.

What I mean is that in these days where many people (including myself) see equality and human rights as a baseline for anything, there are many people and groups who do not, and yet still use the ''correct'' terminology to give an appearance of ''correctness'' - while in practise carrying on as they always have, with all the usual hierarchies undisturbed. I'm certainly not using it as a ''dog whistle''.

Hierarchies would have to be addressed and dismantled if they are found to be illegitimate.

By whom? is my question. Bearing in mind that hierarchies often exist specifically to prevent such activity from spoiling the perceived status quo. ''New member? Shut up, please.''

...people come to believe that capitalism is simply reflective of human nature, or that human society cannot survive without these structures.

I don't believe either of those things, but I do believe human nature requires that society contains structures of some kind. Socialist ones, by and large, to ensure equality (or indeed equity), to ensure that everyone's rights are respected, to ensure that power is spread widely rather than held in a few hands, and that as many people as possible are engaged in processes and decisions that affect their lives. In many ways I do still believe in anarchism - it's just that my experience of actual anarchists (individually and in groups) has led me to doubt whether the theory would work in large-scale practise, bearing in mind how (even well-meaning) people seem to behave when push comes to shove.

 

[Mr Moose]

The problem is that the core philosophy underlying minarchism isn't amenable to socialism. I think you're using the term as a convenient short-hand for something it doesn't actually mean!

Anarcho-communism already covers all those bases, and by "anarcho-communism", I don't mean a form of state socialism, I mean confederated communities working together to provide for themselves and others (awaits inevitable "but who will clean the toilets?" question from weltweit ).

There is an inevitability of these arrangements developing to be very complex. If community A is by the sea and prone to flooding it requires the support of communities B-Z to do so. It's in their interest to solve its problems, but there would be politics. That's social life. Take out the profit motive there is less reason for it to be unfair or corrupt, though the first can always be questioned.

 

[1%er]

What happens if "need" outstrips "ability" by a large factor?

 

[BigTom]

What happens if "need" outstrips "ability" by a large factor?

Chaos probably, just as it would/does now.
Generally everyone in the community would go short, rather than in capitalism where it's the poorest people who go short whilst the richest are left untouched. At some point those shortages would be enough to collapse any society regardless of the structures in place.
Worth mentioning that it's less likely to happen under socialism/anarchism because there isn't a pressure to consume beyond your needs in the way that there is in capitalism and stuff like planned obsolescence would disappear so what resources there are should be used more efficiently.

 

[Biscuitician]

What I mean is that in these days where many people (including myself) see equality and human rights as a baseline for anything, there are many people and groups who do not, and yet still use the ''correct'' terminology to give an appearance of ''correctness'' - while in practise carrying on as they always have, with all the usual hierarchies undisturbed. I'm certainly not using it as a ''dog whistle''.



By whom? is my question. Bearing in mind that hierarchies often exist specifically to prevent such activity from spoiling the perceived status quo. ''New member? Shut up, please.''



I don't believe either of those things, but I do believe human nature requires that society contains structures of some kind. Socialist ones, by and large, to ensure equality (or indeed equity), to ensure that everyone's rights are respected, to ensure that power is spread widely rather than held in a few hands, and that as many people as possible are engaged in processes and decisions that affect their lives. In many ways I do still believe in anarchism - it's just that my experience of actual anarchists (individually and in groups) has led me to doubt whether the theory would work in large-scale practise, bearing in mind how (even well-meaning) people seem to behave when push comes to shove.

People that complain about political correctness are just those desperatley trying to cling to past notions of community relations and cannot understand that these relationships change. Unfortunately they have not been given any help by the state and its structures to change and become polarised.

Hierarchies certainly do act that way, this place is a perfect example of that.

Anarchism seeks to ensure those structures are valid and kept in check. So that they don't become authoritarian and controlling.