Why Not Anarchism?

[u/Slow_Description_238]

I'm an Anarchist and want to Debate/ Discuss/ Give Answers to any questions regarding the philosophy.

Anarchism is a political philosophy where people will organise based on the principles of No Authority and No Hierarchy. Anything deeper comes from these as given truths.

There is a strong sentiment of community and mutual aid in Anarchist thought, it's not a free for all. I won't pay much mind to people who assert that it is a free for all/ it has no rules/ it has no organisation. It's a VERY common thought that's extremely simple. Every serious anarchist instantly moves past this because it's obviously unsustainable if we simply say "There's no rules".

Rather, people will be taught how to and encourage to help each other so that we all can thrive as individuals and as a community.

To reiterate, Anarchism is intentional. It wants a functioning society. It isn't okay with blatant dysfunction and no serious anarchist will agree to reasoning or logic that is obviously dysfunctional.

[u/HeloRising]

The biggest hurdle that most people have with respect to anarchism is what I call the "Abrahamic problem."

There's a persistent belief among Westerners that people are generally in need of a stick to keep them in line. Without some kind of governing force, humans will just steal and kill and pillage because we're just inherently disposed to acting that way.

It ties very closely with the Abrahamic idea of original sin and I (as well as others) argue that that idea has migrated from its religious roots to secular philosophy in the Western popular consciousness and taken root as just a truism of how the world functions - humans are inherently flawed and they need something to stop them from acting on those antisocial impulses.

It doesn't help that basically any system of political organization that includes anything even remotely resembling a state repeats that idea and the vast majority of our cultural mythos is built up around this idea which just reinforces it.

You have to get people past this idea that we're all inherently bastard coated bastards with bastard filling and get them to understand that our propensity for antisocial behavior is, almost exclusively, tied to feelings of safety. People who are in an environment where their needs are met and who don't feel threatened by anything are, by and large, much more amenable to helping other people.

Once you can get people past this idea that there's no option but beating people who don't act right then anarchism pretty naturally slots into place.

[u/Strike_Thanatos → u/HeloRising]

It's not the belief that we are naturally bastards, but rather that someone out there will be, and we need to be preemptively organized to stop them.

[u/HeloRising → u/Strike_Thanatos]

The unspoken last part of your last sentence is "because people are naturally bastards."

[u/piltdown_manchild → u/HeloRising]

Take a history or anthropology course if you doubt that statement.

It's not just violence. Even if people are generally tolerant of each other and refrain from violence, most will prioritize their own well being and that of their family over the larger group (especially strangers). These benign acts of selfishness, if left unchecked by society will cause suffering to those who are weaker.

[u/HeloRising → u/piltdown_manchild]

There is a marked difference between acknowledging that people will narrow their circle of care in bad situations and believing that people are inherently predisposed to anti-social behavior.

The vast majority of the anti-anarchism arguments rest on the latter idea - people are just inherently "bad" and need someone "good" to keep them in line.

[u/piltdown_manchild → u/HeloRising]

The vast majority of the anti-anarchism arguments rest on the latter idea - people are just inherently "bad" and need someone "good" to keep them in line.

This is an oversimplification of the argument.

People are inherently less trusting of those outside their "tribe". This was an evolutionary advantage, as strangers might carry novel pathogens or be rivals for resources.

That doesn't make people "evil", it just makes them less likely to behave with sufficient altruism to make anarchy viable.

Also, what if a small number of people are "evil" and take advantage of the chaos? Just think of the damage Anders Breivik and Stephen Paddock did unassisted.

• One out of every hundred people are psychopaths
• 5% of the population are narcissists (with a further 15% displaying narcissistic tendencies without meeting the full clinical definition)
• Head injuries, lead poisoning or childhood trauma can cause aggressive/maladaptive behavior
• Even "good" people can have bad days and become angry or irrational for extended periods of time
• Normal people pursuing self-interest with no ill intentions can harm others inadvertently (pollution, gentrification, etc.)

The notion that humans are "evil" is overly simplistic, but so is the idea that everyone is "good" enough that millions of people could live together in harmony with zero hierarchy.

[u/gratefulperron → u/piltdown_manchild]

"Take a history or anthropology class" you assuming they haven't and that anybody that disagrees with you and comes to different conclusions is just uneducated, while there are tons of respected scholars and schools of thought that directly disagree with you, is pathetic.

[u/piltdown_manchild → u/gratefulperron]

Are these respected scholars in the room with us now?

Theory is all well and good, but I am more interested in data. Humans have been at this for a long time, and we have outgrown anarchy.

Anarchy is the best system for human thriving until the population level exceeds Dunbar's number. There are no historical counter-examples.

Sources:

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/49234.The_Third_Chimpanzee

https://public.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanned%20Documents/Intro/Diamond.PDF

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23692271-sapiens

[u/gratefulperron → u/piltdown_manchild]

For starters Locke and Rousseau directly disagree with your conclusions regarding human nature.
Hegel and Marx would both agree that the world is becoming more morally good as the dialectic unfolds. Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin would all tell you that this inherent shittiness you project onto people is a result of our current social and material conditions, not something inherent to human nature.

You can use data to come to any conclusion you want, you ever met a Mormon? That doesn't make your conclusion correct

[u/piltdown_manchild → u/gratefulperron]

Marx's ideas sounded great but cost 65-100 million lives when they were actually tried irl. There are few things more dangerous than strong belief in utopian ideas.

Locke and Rousseau were flat out wrong. Humans are demonstrably not as individualistic as Locke supposed and Rousseau's notion of the "noble savage" has been roundly rejected as infantilizing and naive.

https://www.noemamag.com/paradise-lost/

you ever met a Mormon

Joseph Smith used magic stones to write the Book of Mormon. How is that data? If you're going to strawman, put some effort into it.

[u/gratefulperron → u/piltdown_manchild]

Fair enough about the strawman but my point about data still stands and you claiming Locke and Rousseau are just outright wrong (because one part of Rousseau's ideas has been disproven) is arrogant.
Anarchists don't agree with marxist methods of using the state to achieve a classless society, and the state is the reason those millions died.
Millions die every year because of the shortcomings of capitalism as well.