[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 189 KB, 600x600, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11853353 No.11853353 [Reply] [Original]

Write your criticisms of anarchism (not AnCapitalism).

>> No.11853370
File: 39 KB, 512x512, кропоткин.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11853370

>>11853353
It can't come fast enough

>> No.11853373

>>11853353
hierarchical states will spontaneously emerge

>> No.11853407

>>11853373
Why?

>> No.11853443

>>11853407
Because its in their self interest to cooperate

>> No.11853445

>>11853407
For the same reason they won't stop having sex. It's one of their drives. You can try to root it out of children in a very small commune, but even then the chances are very low. In a global scale it's impossible to erase all ambition from mankind.

>> No.11853452

>>11853407
they are more stable, and they are more powerful as units than distribtued non-hierachical networks, meaning they will outcompete such groups

humans naturally form little hierarchies, the more people you have, the more complex they get

the analogy is cliched, but a body doesn't perform well without a head

>> No.11853453

How does anarchism stop the emergence of a "government" within itself?

>> No.11853455

>>11853353
Anarchism might work in a society of 10 or fewer exceptional people.

>> No.11853467

>>11853353
wanting complete freedom from government is a personal stance, and this goes against general human nature as >>11853373 states. I'd expect communalism and cooperative agreements to emerge almost immediately in a true anarchy scenario, and from these you'd get stronger and stronger advancement of society. if this advancement is repressed, the repression would only last for a couple generations maximum.

>> No.11853483

I think the most glaring question is how does anarchism enforce anarchism? What stops an agent from collecting enough power and get rid of it?

>> No.11853485

There would be no governance to prevent people from erecting new power structures

>> No.11853563

>>11853353
An anarchist society is inherently unstable. All it would take is one intelligent malevolent actor to bring the whole house of cards tumbling down.

A society needs coercion in order to function.

>> No.11853583

>>11853353
>anarchism (not AnCapitalism)
how can you have one without the other?

>> No.11853592
File: 31 KB, 220x338, lev.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11853592

>> No.11853605
File: 847 KB, 1002x564, tumblr_static_tumblr_static_7lo89dfs8esckooogswogc840_focused_v3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11853605

>>11853592

>> No.11853649

Anarchism is good but can only exist among equals. Nature produces hierarchies so anarchism will only exist between kings, gods, and sovereigns, and will manifest itself as war, politics, and trade nearly identical to the world we currently find ourselves.

Fear not, I have plan to fix this. After the revolution every single Man, Woman, Nonbinary, Gender Nonconforming Persons, will be affixed with a high yield, miniaturized, nuclear bomb to their chest. I call this Hyper-MAD. Under the Hyper-MAD system all have their biometrics, social activity, and brainwaves monitored by a immense network of pseudo-AI dedicated to tracking and predicting the movements and behaviors of all people. At the first detection of any inequality the system will simultaneously activate all the bombs, resulting in total extinction. This powerful motivator will curtail any reactionary activity that could disrupt the delicate post-revolution harmony.

>> No.11854354

>>11853605
got me. Looks like I am gonna donate money to Gary Johnson

>> No.11854359

>>11853373
Yea and? Anarchism are against hierarchy created and supported by violence

>> No.11854360

>>11854354
actually im a leaf so Burnier

>> No.11854380

>>11854359
Exactly. This is why Christian-Anarcho-Monarchism is the only system that works. We renounce the unnatural hierarchies imposed on us by capitalism and instead acknowledge the divine right of kings as both capstone and bedrock of God's graceful ordering of the world.

>> No.11854388

>>11853445
>it's impossible to erase all ambition from mankind

good, but what does that have to do with unjustified hierarchy?

>> No.11854390

>>11854380
>renounce one hierarchy created by man for another one created by man
No gods and no masters brainlet

>> No.11854393

>>11853353
Stateless societies could not defend themselves against a powerful state with an organized military; they would be easy targets for exploitation by states with imperialist ambitions. It's the same reason socialism cannot exist within a global capitalist economy: cooperatives will always be driven out of the market place by international profit seeking companies. A future with no states implies a transitional period where some societies are stateless and the rest maintain their statehood. This situation would likely mirror the cold war, where "stateless societies" have to resort to authoritarianism and a strong military in order to protect their "statelessness" from the remaining states. These stateless societies would ultimately meet a similar fate as communist societies from the 20th century, where they either collapse and are reborn as some kind of (likely democratic) state like Russia, or quietly shed their ideology with reforms like China (Anarchism with [national] characteristics).

>> No.11854397

>>11853407
Ask someone for mutual help you are instantly better than some faggot who is alone.

>> No.11854400

>>11854390
t. fedora atheist doomed to live in eternal repeats of the 20th century

>> No.11854418

>>11854400
Even assuming divine rights of kings and God is real( I think the latter exist though), the vision of society you want will happen naturally anyway, fighting for its implementation go against anarchism from the get go

>> No.11854425

>>11854418
>the vision of society you want will happen naturally anyway

Now you are on to something!

>> No.11854467

>>11853353
In this day and age it's a perfect way to get feudalisam to rise from it's grave

>> No.11854468

>>11853373
We need feudalism

>> No.11854474

>>11854425
Then there is no point is advocating or even mentioning it dumbass

>> No.11854477

Bring back feudalism and ban free trade and technology beyond the 1930s level.

>> No.11854493

>>11853353
Even more ludacris than anarcho-capitalism.

Not only do you expect society not to collapse without the use of a state, but you expect a basic sense of property and contractual employment for funds to be disbanded.

Anarchy in such a sense is only possible with small tribes, 200 or so people each. Slavery of the enemies would quickly become justifiable.

Anyone who is a left anarchist is a brainlet. Anarcho socialism is the cringe ideology of the edgy 17 year old crowd who are too stupid and low IQ to read Marx.

>> No.11854511

>>11853353
Everybody I know who advocates it has a total lack of positive attributes and should rightfully be gassed.

>> No.11854539

>>11854493
>but you expect a basic sense of property and contractual employment for funds to be disbanded

mutualists are anarchists too

>> No.11854643

>>11853353
we haven't reached a stage of globalization/technology that makes it possible.

>> No.11854664

The State's good actually, according to itself.

>> No.11854667

>>11854493
>but you expect a basic sense of property and contractual employment for funds to be disbanded.
Just shoot anyone who does that, it is not that hard

>> No.11854669

>>11853353
Groups that don't organise military force will be conquered by those who do. The state will not exist in a vacuum, so will be destroyed and plundered by stronger ones.

>> No.11854671

>>11854664
kek

>> No.11854746

Anarchism has and will never work. Human moral is defined either by religion or social standards. Religion will inevitably lead to conflict between groups of different believes while a lack of social standards is a breeding ground for chaos. Anarchism might work for a small, independent group living by itself but since anarchism is against borders and rejecting others, said group won't be able to live like that for long.

>> No.11855038

>>11854746
Nah, morals are real
Sorry about your God senpai, but where we're going, you won't need him

>> No.11855984

It's so terrified of power, that it can never seize power to change anything.

>> No.11856025

>>11854393
Finally a decent criticism.

>> No.11856096

>>11854359
And how on earth are you supposed to prevent those?

>> No.11856109

>>11855038
You seriously think that morality will stay intact without religion or government? You have way too much faith in humanity, anarchist anon.

>> No.11856114

>>11854493
>Not only do you expect society not to collapse
only childish 'anarchists' with incoherent thoughts

The real anarchists are vehemently against society. Anarchy cannot be anything more than a process in which we destroy every oppresive and liberticide objects and entities. Ted Kaczynski came up with the ultimate anarchist philosophy of our time.

>> No.11856122

>>11856109
>morality will stay intact without religion or government
Then there was never a morality to begin with

>> No.11856198

>>11856096
With violence I approve of silly

>> No.11856199
File: 286 KB, 750x733, 31.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11856199

>>11854388
>justification

>> No.11857066
File: 499 KB, 641x634, stalin bong.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11857066

Its impossible because the state is an instrument of class struggle. As long as reactionary and bourgeois forced exist in society, there will need to be a state. Anarchists don't understand the withering away of the state. Just look at the CNT/FAI, that was just a state despite their claims to contrary. The had a justice minister, central planning, prison camps and armies.

>> No.11857125

the only viable form of anarchism of anarcho-primitivism because potentially anarchic societies will always be destabilised by the potential of industry and modern technology through organisation and hierarchy. an anarcho-primitivist society presupposes that most technologies etc have been willingly disposed of. it is essentially the dominant ideology of human history (if you count prehistory).

>> No.11858323

>>11854393
>Stateless societies could not defend themselves against a powerful state with an organized military
thats why the US can invade somalia easily without high losses
...oh wait

>> No.11858400

>>11853373

This. A lot of anarchist writing is whining about the mean feeling things and not really how and why anarchism will work

>> No.11858424

>>11856109
>he thinks government has moral superiority

>> No.11858430

>>11858323
if they didnt care about massacring civiians they could take it over in a week

>> No.11858512

>>11853353

Americans are too stupid to not be cucked.

>> No.11858519

>>11853353
It's not real.

>> No.11858555

>>11858323
Your defense of anarchy is a country that has been in a civil war supported by other nation states for over thirty years?

>> No.11858583

>>11853353
Real anarchy has never been tried!

>> No.11859109

All that is required for anarchism to be viable is for the non-aggression principle to be true. The NAP also has to be true for democracy to exist, because democracies wouldn't be viable if there weren't downsides to just stealing everything. Democracy exists, therefore anarchism is possible.

There is one (current) issue with anarchism that I NEVER see anybody mention though: under the NAP, any and all acts of environmental terrorism are justified.

>> No.11859576

>>11853353
Structural systems are emergent.

>> No.11859589

>>11859576
anarchy isnt necessarily unstructured

>> No.11859923

>>11853353
Why not AnCapitalism? Don't want your beliefs challenged?

>> No.11859991

>>11857125
How do you sustain the leisure necessary to educate each successive generation of the need to abandon technology? It only takes one inventor to kick off another industrial revolution.

>> No.11859997

>>11859109
>NAP
>Democracy
>Eco-Terrorism
I want to say Frogtwitter but it looks more like retardation or bait.

>> No.11859999

Order > Chaos.
Anarchists get shot on the day Stuarts are restored.

>> No.11860332

>>11859991
you don't, all technology is abandoned and successive generations forget the ability to do so. if somebody restructures civilisation it'll be very difficult to get to the level we are now.

>> No.11861924

>>11853353
>not AnCapitalism
Anarcho-capitalism is the only true form of anarchism. The natural state of humanity is capitalism.

>> No.11862031

Anarcho-primitivism is the endgoal of human development, and climate change is just accelerationism
Luckily we won't live to see it, but people born over the next couple of decades will

>> No.11862052

I thought /lit/ would be better at understanding what anarchism is than /pol/. Why can't people stop falling for the strawman?

>> No.11862554
File: 60 KB, 1024x1004, 1535519579502.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11862554

>>11857066
>state is an instrument of class struggle.
Shut up idealogue

>> No.11862630

>>11862554
You can't beat the materalist dialectic.
Not the materialist dialectic, man. It's too strong.

>> No.11862635

>>11853373
This. Just needs one warlord with a dozen followers.

>> No.11862686

>>11862635
>unironically thinking that the state is what prevents warlords from existing
Read a book, nigger.

>> No.11862710

>>11862686
A state is just a warlord with extra steps

>> No.11862718

>>11862710
And why do you think those extra steps exist?

>> No.11862739

>>11862052
Yeah, I'm kinda surprised by seeing so many bad takes.
Personally I think some kind of state may be needed but we should strive to get as close as possible to libertarian socialism

>> No.11862754

>>11862739
Saying a state is needed is like saying religion is needed. They are both exactly the same thing: people believing that long-term thinking cannot occur in humans without it being enforced.

>> No.11862786

>>11862718
For various reasons. It just needs a warlord to conquer, it needs a ruler to rule. It needs a good ruler to keep ruling. Rulers are not immortal so methods need to be found to maintain the spirit of his rule beyond his death or retirement. Once the state becomes too big to handle by one man, it requires delegation. Delegates will strive for power just like warlords. When the ruler becomes weak, the delegates become stronger. Eventually the delegates take over. Then the delegates fight between each other. And so on and so forth. Sometimes the whole thing collapses and you go back to bare bones warlords.

>> No.11862820

>>11862786
>It just needs a warlord to conquer,
This first step cannot happen. A modern civilization cannot be conquered, it can only be destroyed, and people aren't going to risk their lives just to destroy something for no gain.

>> No.11862838

>>11853353
Anarchism is incoherent. Society garuntees fundamentally incompatible interests among its members and those differences necessarily can only be resolved through violence. Every supposed form of anarchy contains a state that they simply refuse to acknowledge as such.

>> No.11862856

>>11862820
There has never been a modern civilization without government / ruling / hierarchies. How does removing the state not remove the civilization it maintains? How do you enter a state of anarchy without destroying civilization first?

>> No.11862876

>>11862856
>the civilization it maintains
I don't see the president outside in summer building roads.

>> No.11862889

What does an anarchist society do to murders, rapists, and thieves?

>> No.11862890

>>11862876
I don't see random people building roads because they want them to exist too. People only do public works projects when there is a unified, direct incentive to carry them out.

>> No.11862898

>>11853373
organic hierarchies also arise. Anarchism doesn't close gaps between individuals in meaningful ways. There will always be the stronger, more beautiful, more clever et al

>> No.11862918

>>11853353
its ontological position, its extreme optimism in human-nature, is entirely unfounded

>> No.11862919

>>11862876
Someone is deciding to put the road there. Someone is deciding to keep the road there. Someone is funding the construction, someone is overseeing the maintenance of the road. Someone makes sure the road gets used according to traffic rules. Someone made up those traffic rules. Someone keeps the road free of rodents.

There is a giant hierarchy involved in that one road beyond that one guy poring tar on gravel.

>> No.11862923

>>11862890
You mean like how gas stations pay for the construction of roads(though they can't pay for much since the government takes a huge cut for no reason)?

>> No.11862984
File: 150 KB, 850x1189, __ryuujou_kantai_collection_drawn_by_nito_nshtntr__sample-695d199ba4a8d7e6d2e72164cfc177c1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11862984

>>11853373
Pre-civilization (That is, dating beyond 12,000 years ago) didn't have states spontaneously emerge. The real question of anarchism (and maybe even communism, certainly the more leftcom trends) is whether or not we can achieve organic self-sustaining and autonomous communities in the post-collapse of capital.

>> No.11862991
File: 108 KB, 900x900, 1537274176109.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11862991

>>11862898
No serious anarchist argues against birthed and natural hierarchies. They argue against unjust hierarchies where few robbers sit atop a mountain of wealth and crush anyone who doesn't play beneath them. There are talented geniuses who died in poverty simply because of unjust hierarchies. Read your fucking books, man.

>> No.11863021

>>11862984
>Pre-civilization (That is, dating beyond 12,000 years ago) didn't have states spontaneously emerge.
Even those had hierarchies and rulers at the top. Even a tribe is a state, just the most primitive form of a state. They did not have complex forms of government because the groups of people living together were small enough to not require them. Once agriculture allowed big numbers of people to live together, more complex forms of government developed accordingly.

>> No.11863125

>>11863021
But their ''economy'' was more or less egalitarian, one couldn't hoard the wealth we see in agrarian society but instead had to sustain himself with his own labour, something which he shared & engaged in others' labour to an extent as well. There was no commodity and life was entirely social bar personal things like clothes.

>> No.11863154

>>11863125
One could not hoard the wealth, because there simply was no wealth beyond the bare necessities. There is no virtue in being abstinent of something you can't have in the first place. Yet even in those societies, I am almost certain the leader of the tribe had the best hides, best women and the best piece of meat from the hunt.

>> No.11863183

The biggest reason why anarchism hasn't happened is because it doesn't need to happen. The parasites haven't become enough of a burden to risk killing the host, but a welfare crisis could quickly change that.

>> No.11863214

>>11863154
Private property didn't exist back then. That was the difference from back then to now.

>> No.11863218

>>11863214
How do you know that?

>> No.11863370
File: 28 KB, 500x375, 1532197201874.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11863370

>>11862991
>Every single anarchist thinks like i do or they aren't "serious"

>> No.11863390
File: 114 KB, 960x620, 2dede33a6c54b13cd7cecde1aed9cfbd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11863390

>>11863370

>> No.11863424
File: 63 KB, 278x259, 1533303441463.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11863424

>>11863390
This is so self evident that you wouldn't think it'd require explaining

>> No.11863446

>>11853373
>>11853407
the thing with anarchism (at least non spooky anarchism) is that it focuses less on states or petty politics and more on the individual. this is why the permanent revolution of the individual itself is paramount. in everyone of us exists a fascist with an urge to oppress both ourselves and others. it is necesarry to combat this inner fascsim first and foremost. when human beings are on the journey to genuine self actualization and deterritorialization (something that can never be fully realized, hence it is a horizon not a goal), any permanent heirarchical structures are impossible. actually non cucked non spooked egos will never subordinate themselves to any heirarchy because any heirarchy will always limit these individuals, even the ones at the top of it. heirarchical temporary organizations may form, and then dissolve. but no heirarchical state is possible in this realm.

the issue with this is that although there is no genetic or biological basis for these heirarchical structures (peterson is wrong), thousands of years of imprinting is not inconsequential. humanity is largely marked with this stain of cuckoldry and cowardice to domination by someone or something. its probaly true that the only salvation really is through simply discarding with the blemished Human and fully embrace a posthuman future where individuals are both biologically and or technologically programmed to resist power and to be autonomous fully egoist actors.

this is though, of course incredibly unlikely and naive. what is much much more likely is a much darker future. but its the only shot left.

>> No.11863451

>>11859923
No, it's because the criticisms of an anti-capitalist ideology and a capitalist ideology are going to be very different.

>> No.11863459

>>11863424
Apparently you don't have the capacity to differentiate between a serious and non-serious, illogical thinker, a Marx or Kant to an Ayn Rand, so I set out the humble task to inform of you something so rudimentary

>> No.11863471

>>11863459
I'm not that anon you rude

>> No.11863474

>>11859109
the NAP is cowardice and childishness. violence and aggression is a part of existence itself, literally beyond even what we consider life.

democracies are incredibly violent so im not sure what you're saying

>> No.11863481

>>11863446
Technology can only make slavery less useful. The only possible darkness in the future is a big purge, but reality doesn't tend to be that dramatic.

>> No.11863508

>>11863481
technology is slavery. it just might mean that accelerationism has a point that a "freedom" can paradoxically be found in fully embracing this into ourselves and becoming it.

>> No.11863512

>>11863218
Animals don't have a concept of private property

>> No.11863514

>>11863474
Why do you believe that it's required to force people at gunpoint to work in their own interests? Surely you must realize how ridiculous this idea is.
>democracies are incredibly violent so im not sure what you're saying
Nobody can have a sense of perspective this poor.

>> No.11863526

>>11863154
thats where you're wrong actually. there was first of all, gender equality, so the women weren't anyon'es property. you are imposing a modern day mindset and values onto the past. hunter gatherer tribes had widespread polygamy among all members, as well as having all the meat and hides equally shared among all members of the group.

>> No.11863581

>>11863514

>Why do you believe that it's required to force people at gunpoint to work in their own interests? Surely you must realize how ridiculous this idea is.

people are different and their interests are naturally mutually exclusive at times. not all the times, but at times. it boils down to this. if i have sheep, and you have corn but are not willing to trade and are not willing to make any accomodations at all, i will steal your corn if i have to. if i have to i will murder you.

hell it doesnt even have to be in my "best interest". humans are not rational robots. we are animals. sometimes, someone for whatever reason will want something or do something that is not in their best interest purely out of instinct or drive that cannot be explained in any rational way. that is fine and that is human.

>Nobody can have a sense of perspective this poor.

right back at you. im assuming you mean western democracies. these only seem more stable because the state has a total monopoly of violent force over all other actors and so imposes its own will on the population, again through force of arms.

try disobeying a law above jaywalking. try refusing the fine they give you. eventually what happens if you keep refusing is men with guns come to deal with you, then if you continue to refuse they throw you into a metal cage, again guarded by men with guns. instruments of violent force.

>> No.11863606

>>11853373
This is one of the many criticism. How will law be enforced without a centralized government?

>> No.11863837

Wouldn't monastic orders count as Anarchistic societies? The members voluntarily join and are free to leave, property is held semi-communally. In the past at least, they also were nearly self-sufficient and some Buddhist orders maintained a defense force(christian orders might have as well I'm not sure).

Anarchism might be a fine ideal, but I don't see it ever working in larger societies, the "egalitarian" hunter gatherers are essentially extended families.

>> No.11865197

>>11863512
They do actually. If you ever had pets, dogs and cats guard their private property jealously. And 12.000 years ago humans were not very different from us today genetically.

>>11863526
I don't know why people keep believing this utopian idealism based on wishful thinking. There is no evidence for that. Even if we remove all social factors. There is no gender equality in any of the other great apes. Men and women always had separate roles. And you don't need a concept of property, though I am very sure they had one 12.000 years ago. A dominance hierarchy based on strength and success leads to the same result. And it would not require a tyrannical patriarchy or whatever you want to call it for the leader to get the women he wants. They would naturally be attracted to him, just as most women today are attracted to powerful men in high social standing, it's not like that is socialized behavior. It's instinctual.

>> No.11865203

>>11863526
how is polygamy gender equality? Isn't that a subset of men having power over the other men and all women?

>> No.11865367

>>11865197

>I don't know why people keep believing this utopian idealism based on wishful thinking. There is no evidence for that.

actually there is. you're just ignorant of it. hunter gatherer tribes still exist today, and whether they be in the amazon, sub saharan africa, or southeast asia, they all have relative gender equality and sharing of the resources available. not out of the goodness of their hearts but because that is the system of social relations that naturally arises out of that mode of living. polyamory is also ubiquitous regardless of marital status and their entire ideas of sex are also entirely different.

>Even if we remove all social factors. There is no gender equality in any of the other great apes

weak petersonesque appeal to biology as authority.
there is very little biological basis for any one system of social relations. literal baboon troops go through periods of extremely violent heirarchical domination by a male and then long periods of peaceful coexistence once the aggressive males are gone.

>men and women always had separate roles

not really. men typically specialized in hunting but that didn't mean that they didnt also gather, and women would also hunt depending on the animal.

>And you don't need a concept of property, though I am very sure they had one 12.000 years ago

they didnt.

> A dominance hierarchy based on strength and success leads to the same result. And it would not require a tyrannical patriarchy or whatever you want to call it for the leader to get the women he wants

dude, what the fuck are you even talking about? does literally all you know about this come from jordan peterson and 4chan? be honest.

there is no such thing as one male being the top dog and having sole access to all the females and resources because hes so big and bad and dominant. that doesnt happen, never has, and still to this day doesnt fucking happen. That isnt how power even works. A heirarchy at the top, is always dominated by a coalition of individuals. it is literally never one person. that person would get murdered by other people forming coalitions. this is seen in nearly every animal grouping, especially the apes. the successful "alpha" is someone that a coalition of other apes support because they can mediate social relations in the group best as well as share the resources among the coalition.

>They would naturally be attracted to him, just as most women today are attracted to powerful men in high social standing, it's not like that is socialized behavior. It's instinctual.

Anyone can get laid. It really isnt that hard. This might fucking blow your mind but, get ready for this: It's possible for women to want and enjoy sex, simply for the sex itself.
Not for the man's social standing
Not for his wealth
Not for his muscles
Not for any characteristic that you lack
Literally just because he's a man and women like men.

>> No.11865381

>>11865197
>dogs and cats guard their private property jealously. And 12.000 years ago humans were not very different from us today genetically.
That is their personal property they are guarding, not private property.

>> No.11865391

>>11865203
polyamory is more accurate, and no. a big part of gender inequality is a weird childish idolisation of sexual access. it is both feared and hoarded. in hunter gatherer groups, sexual contact was widespread among nearly all members of the group. even in tribes that had an idea of "marriage", that wouldnt mean that they were sexually monogamous. in fact in many of these tribes what happens is a cultural attitude against not just monogamy but what we would consider "right to your own body" in that you literally couldnt refuse someone if they wanted to have sex with you. theres a story iirc about how while studying a tribe, an archaeologist found a young male hiding in his tent. he later found out that he was hiding from his female cousin, who wanted to bang him all the time and he just tired of it i guess. but the cultural attitude made it so that he couldnt say no if she asked him for sex. so his next best choice is to hide so that she cant find him so that she cant ask him for sex.

>> No.11865449

>>11865367
A lot of text saying nothing of value. Those tribes also have social hierarchies. A few even have women at the top, but there are always social hierarchies.

Baboons are special in their social structure when it comes to mating. Hamadryas baboons have harems with one male mating with 4-5 females while savannah baboons have a mixed system of dominant baboons getting to pick who they mate with by fighting over it while the lower rank baboons get the leftovers, but it is also possible to garner the favor of female baboons by performing useful tasks for them such as raising children, which then gets rewarded with sex. Gorillas are the most obvious example with their alpha male silverbacks, I don't have to go into detail here I assume. Chimpanzees are made up of large groups with an alpha male at the top and several sub-groups, each having their own dominance hierarchy with usually a strong male at the top.

>weird feminist rant
>assuming bad intentions or lack of qualities in the speaker
I should probably ignore your bad faith arguments, but whatever. Ironically, you are applying modern social standards to the issue. Instincts and urges exist, that does not mean we are bound by them. Women (in general) are attracted to strong males in high social standing, that does not mean they will necessarily pick a strong male in high social standing as a long term partner. There are also outliers who are attracted to other things more. Men (in general) are attracted healthy young women with big breasts, fertile hips and other features signaling sexual health. Does that mean man don't care about other features? No. Nonetheless these are primal urges and if you remove socialization then they maximize in their expression.

>>11865381
There is no obvious difference between the two. It's just a matter of definition. If I go hiking or camping with friends, then I share my tools and even my tent (would be private property in the tribal context), but in the end they end up back in my backpack and I take care of them. Many animals guard their territory, either as individual against other individuals, or as a tribe against other tribes, their personal property, which also happens to be their means of production.

>> No.11865492
File: 90 KB, 960x890, cc57e31005170ef7653b9446bafb137b0ddae94dab0878c3d6013f56beda82f0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11865492

>>11865449
>There is no obvious difference between the two. It's just a matter of definition.
There is to leftists. Do you even read what any anarchists' work?

> I share my tools and even my tent (would be private property in the tribal context),
No it isn't. The house you live in is personal , the house you rent to is private

>> No.11865501

>>11865492
>There is to leftists.
I am aware that some brands of "leftism" believe that. But the difference is imaginary and if you remove the construct, the definition that defines them, then they are indistinguishable.

>> No.11865505

>>11865501
>some brands of "leftism" believe that.
All brands believe that. And the difference is not imaginary since the State protects people's private property for them. Hence laws against squatting are different for home invasion.

>> No.11865515

>>11865505
Just because the difference is enforced by society, or the state in particular, that does not mean they are not made up.

For instance the definition by rent only makes sense if you assume money exists. If I we remove all society and social constructs and go back to the most primitive humans: Let's say I have build myself a house (personal property) and I invite someone else to live with me in exchange for goods and services then I have just rented my personal property to someone, which now is also private property per definition. It gets better once I make children with that other tenant and start a family. I am now also sharing my private personal property with a community.

>> No.11865535

>>11865515
>which now is also private property per definition. It gets better once I make children with that other tenant and start a family. I am now also sharing my private personal property with a community.
Yes and? You already clearly made the distinction yourself.

>> No.11865551

>>11865535
It's made up. Constructs applied by me in retrospect to a simple situation that arises naturally. The pre-societal guy building a hut, taking in a woman and making babies did not give a damn about property rights when he did these things. He would not know the difference. There is no purity of the ideal tribal human living in the utopian harmony of no-private-property.

>> No.11865589

>>11865551
>There is no purity of the ideal tribal human living in the utopian harmony of no-private-property.
But the construct you created to describe your situation (especially the unprovable with the 'exchange for goods and services' part) is very different from what is private property right now. Even within your situation you said "sharing my private personal property with a community" which is not one does in modern society. And you shifted the discussion from animals having conception of property to humans having conception of property.

>> No.11865599

>>11853353
The world is already anarchic. Societies don't form in spite of anarchy but are a reaction to it.

>> No.11865616

>>11865589
>you shifted the discussion from animals having conception of property to humans having conception of property.
Animals having a conception of property, or rather ownership was brought up to explain that even tribal humans can have a sense of owning things themselves (including their means of production) which would count as private property by modern standards, disproving the idea that tribal humans lived in a anarcho-communist utopia or some other anarcho flavor. So I did not shift the discussion.

I tried to explain that the focus on money exchange being the defining factor of private property is silly, because you can do the same thing with goods and services instead of money and in fact that is done quite often in interpersonal relationships, even today. It doesn't have to go as far as letting a sexual partner live in your property, if you let a friend sleep on your couch you are also doing this in exchange for emotional support and previous or future favors. Even if we skip forward from pre-agrarian societies to complex civilizations. The concept of marriage was for a long time primarily an exchange of goods and services, just more formalized than the guy in the hut example.

>you said "sharing my private personal property with a community" which is not one does in modern society
This is what most people do when they raise children. It's also enforced to some degree by the state today, but most people do this naturally. The existence of families itself undoes the simplistic view on property as being personal, private or communal.

>> No.11865633

>>11853373
That might be a likely outcome but that doesnt make hierarchys just or good.

Is/ought distinction

>> No.11865636

>>11865633
Is is ought.

>> No.11865647

Not a criticism but, this needs to be said seing as some people in the thread seem to have a misconception over what anarchism is: Anarchy is more about working closely with the people around you than it is about disrupting the current governing system. The only problem is like some people have pointed out, anarchists are generally the first political group to fall victim of the actions carried out by other political forces during a class struggle, who are more focused in seizing governing control as the main and sometimes only motive (see spanish civil war, soviet union). Anarchism is more of a philosophy than a political movement which is why it actually works better in practice than other political ideas such as socialism, comunism, nationalsocialism etc

>> No.11865649

>>11865647
>Anarchy is more about working closely with the people around you than it is about disrupting the current governing system
That doesn't sound very anarchic to me.

>> No.11865651

>>11853483
Kropotkin suggests that dissidents will be sort of cast out; the commune would turn their backs on people that refuse to work for example. I'm not sure what the reaction of the commune is when people actively try to dissolve it though.

>> No.11865665

>>11865651
>the commune
Imagine trying to get rid of spooks only to get more spooked.

>> No.11865666

>>11865649
Maybe because the ideas you have over anarchy have been heavily filtered by the media ;)

>> No.11865698

>>11863526
If we extrapolate what we've observed in hunter gatherers:
>Not polygamy but polygyny, where one man controls a bunch of women.
>The index of how many women you have is how powerful you're (i.e how successful are you at war and how many resources you control).
>Said wars (actually raids) killed up to 50% of combat abled men per year, one of the loots was women.
>Homicide and rape were rampant and the basic form of justice was personal.
>Mass killings weren't out of the question (we've actually found archaeological evidence of this last one).

>> No.11865733

>>11865492
>having rights over property you don't use and charging rents for it
But you're using it. You're renting it. That's a use.

>> No.11865740

>>11853353
So far it's been expressed well as haven-ist but might struggle to defend itself at a formal side.

>> No.11865767

>>11865733
sounds like capitalism to me

>> No.11865900

>>11865616
I pointed out animals having a concept of property precisely to show that personal property is something that exist in nature. The problem with talking what tribal human did or did not do is that it is a blurry line between naturalistic and artificial. Perhaps they started out like animals approaching property as a personal one, but as it became more complex, hypothetical situations like yours probably did appear and the concept of private property appeared along with moral economy and family inheritance. And we do know all three concepts are artificial ones since nothing similar exist in the animal kingdom. That is why i refrained from mentioning primitive human, instead just talked about animals and am somewhat offended that you seem to want to converse with me about the former instead of the latter as proof as personal property being an human construct.

>> No.11865918

>>11853455

>Anarchism might work in a society of 10 or fewer exceptional people.

Leaving the exceptional thing behind, the most hierarchial shit happens in close-knitted groups of that size.

>> No.11865920

>>11865633
if something is impossible then its goodness is irrelevant. heaven is very good. heaven does not exist and is not relevant to political discourse

>> No.11865999

I believe that the best government is that which governs the least (or not at all,) but human nature dictates self-interest in the less enlightened masses. The law needs to exist to keep these people in check and to give us a system by which can be reflected on those that have disorderly minds. If everyone was on the same page then perhaps it would be different, but the only way I could see that happening is in anarcho-primitivism. But by doing that there is both still a risk of others seeking power and a basic risk of security. It might revert back to base tribalism, and in turn develop into a group with tribal government. The only way one can trust anarchy is if one is alone. In other words, solo-anarchism is the best option.

>> No.11866057

>>11863390
>People will always have different capabilities, and those differences make up the whole of humanity
>Also differences in wealth are illegitimate because they obviously couldn't be the result of differences of capability

K bro.

>> No.11866468

>>11863390
>be good at renting out apartments
>be good at running companies
>be good at investing
>No, no! Those skills don't count!

>> No.11866495

>>11865647
>Anarchy is more about working closely with the people around you than it is about disrupting the current governing system.
While this is technically correct, dismantling the current power structure would be a prerequisite to/enviable consequence of a more egalitarian society anyway: the state is considered an unjust hierarchy.

>> No.11866562

>>11866468
> and one day, as I collected my rent check after refusing to repair some plumbing, I knew. It came so suddenly, but I was so sure: This is my true calling. I'm really good at charging money and figuring out reasons I shouldn't have to repair things, and I think that's why I was put on this earth!

>> No.11866574

>>11854667
Then it's no longer a stateless society if you have a band of men effectuating power through the barrel of a a gun.

>> No.11866579

>>11862984
>Pre-civilization (That is, dating beyond 12,000 years ago) didn't have states spontaneously emerge

Yes that is why there are no states and no hierarchy today and I am writing that from a cave.
What the fuck do you mean, "pre-civilization"? "Before hierarchy existed, hierarchy didn't spontaneously emerge"? Woah.

>> No.11866594

>>11866579
Pre-civilization still had significant hierarchy in the mechanisms of breeding and social leadership. There's over 4 times the variation among female haplotypes as male haplotypes indicating there has long been hierarchy in the form of differing access to mating, even prior to significant material differences.

>> No.11866595

>>11866562
Not sure where you live, but there are laws against that. And if there isn't a housing crises going on then people can rent elsewhere where the landlord offers a better deal.

>> No.11866603

>>11866594
This kills the savage lover.

>> No.11866606

Most "Anarchists" would hate Anarchism because they take State-sanctioned benefits for granted and would freak out in their absence. They're just Adaddyists, i.e. women.

>> No.11866671

>>11866495
*inevitable consequence of

Also, what is with this thread's obsession with anarcho-primitivism? Why should tribal communities serve as models for highly complex modern societies? Would any of you really give up technology if given the choice?

>> No.11866684

>>11866671
Simple systems fit in simple heads

>> No.11866702

>>11863446
>Literally cant make a non-heirarchical system.
>says there's a fascist inside us.
>not biological.
Fuck off dumb cunt. The future is fascist.

>> No.11866915

>>11866671
Because its very easy to imagine anarcho-primitivism working and there are real life examples to boot. A 21st century western Anarchism in a globalized world is almost impossible clearly conceive of. What would it even look like?

>> No.11866945
File: 898 KB, 487x560, 1533642886019.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11866945

>>11866057
Wealth differences and labor input proportions are illegitimate in current society, yes.

>>11866594
Anarchism doesn't care about who you procreate with, it is mostly concerned with artificial limitations imposed upon us and the unacceptable wealth hoarding, concentration of wealth becomes even more concentrated into fewer hands later down the line. Increasing wealth gaps are a reality and the situation is becoming rather dire.

>>11866468
>talented at being a filthy parasite

>> No.11866957

>>11853353
Humans crave order in the modern day

>> No.11866975

>>11866945
>illegitimate
There's no such thing as something truly illegitimate. You can do whatever you can get away with.
>talented at being a filthy parasite
Because wanting to live without paying rent is not parasitic at all.

>> No.11867078

>>11866975
>Because wanting to live without paying rent is not parasitic at all.
What right do you have to stake a claim in a property that you don't live in?

>> No.11867087

>>11867078
What right do you have to stake a claim in a property that you do live in?

>> No.11867101

>>11867078
I have the power of society backing me. What could you do against that?