Anarchy is a political structure where there’s basically no one in charge, right? But wouldn’t that just create a power vacuum that would filled by organized crime, corporations, etc.? Then, after that power vacuum is filled, we’re right back at square one, and someone is in charge.
Are there any political theorists that have come up with a solution to this problem?
This is exactly the problem I was highlighting. It’s nice to construct the idea where people get along but how do you incentivize them to actually do that without using coercive methods? “We can make this work if everyone just gets along” is just another tautology. Unsurprisingly, any system will work if all people would just cooperate.
Not to even get to the general logistical difficulties with deciding how many carrots one should get for building a house, and if that’s fair. And the free rider problem.
And what if the people who disagree decide to subjugate (and possibly erase) the anarchist system? What if (as is likely) people decide that they want is personal power and authority over others?
It fails internally due to it’s fragility in the face of corruption. And when scaled, it would have to compete with anyone who decides that might makes right (by any means necessary). Pure, non-coercive anarchism inherently cannot withstand an attack from anyone who is willing to be coercive in order to gain power.
(Also to @ageedizzle@piefed.ca)
They can defederate all they like. The problem is in the way the “democratic” vote was presented. Their method of conducting the vote (with very clear bias) shows that the Admins had a strong opinion on what the correct result of the vote should be. This is abuse of power - which should not exist in an actual Anarchist setting. The exact same driving forces can be copied and pasted to other scenarios: the organizing body of an Anarchist community has a Strong Opinion about a matter, and they put the matter to vote “democratically”, but they use extremely loaded rhetoric to push their own agenda so that people vote the way they want. It’s consent manufacturing, and thus, not Anarchism. I highly recommend reading Animal Farm.
And to be clear: I’m fine with db0 admins doing whatever they like, but calling it an “Anarchist” instance is then misleading. It’s rather just another informal, progressive oligarchy where the appearance of democracy is used to mask centralized platform governance. Anarchism failed, because the moment they created that farce of a vote, they stopped being anarchists and became authoritarians. Anarchist ideals did not do what they needed to do for the db0 admins to get the results they wanted.
1st point : how to motivate people to do useful things ?
Because as i stated, they have an interest to do so. If they help, they get help in return. You have an interest to do your job and voluntary work because in return people will help you, either because you give them money or because they help people as volunteers.
Also people do things in their lives, mostly things helpful to themselves or others. They don’t sit there waiting unless they are forced to do stuff. This point of view is obviously false, and is a premise used by bourgeois propaganda to legitimate exploitation.
2nd point : what if people try to recreate power ?
This is a whole debate, it can come to education, groups looking out for power situations like ngos do with corruption, and if need be armed struggle. But this falls under the “how to destroy power” problem rather than “how to live when there is no power”, and you’re right to point it out, this is one of the big problem. It’s even bigger than what you point out, because we have to get rid of actual existing powers, which we’ll agree is far harder than preventing new ones to emerge.
3rd point : corruption/weakness against power
I agree that anarchy is weak against power, because power is predatory and anarchy is not or is less. Preventing rise of authoritarianism would be one of the big problems, we agree. Now, again you make it seem quite absolute, like “one dude using violence would make the whole system fall” : this is not that easy, violence can be in the hands in the anarchists too if it’s used against them. If one dude wants to use violence to take power, you can simply stop them with a bunch of people. Now, if they armed themselves or got a bunch of people to follow them, you get a semblance of power again, and it calls for struggle against it : either discussion to find a common ground, either violent struggle if previous is not possible.
Again, your comments make me think that you don’t think that anarchy does not work, you think it does not stand against power, which is different, and which i perfectly understand.
4th point : on db0
OK, my bad for mistaking your point. Indeed, the db0 admins are quite intense about their positions, but i do think that it is fine. The problem is that they hold power over the instance, not that they state their opinion. But it has to do with how tech works rather than anything else.
You cannot have anarchy when someone or a group physically has the system, and/or the ability to do whatever to do with it. If it was an anarchist system, they would be mandated, they could be revoked, etc., and people submitting an idea to assembly vote could be very vocal for it, to defend it (and typically would not be part of the mandated organizing people). db0 is indeed not that, it is a anarchist-themed or anarchist-leaning instance functioning by non-anarchist means. So the problem you identified has to do with power, not with anarchy. Eventually with power used by people promoting anarchy, but not anarchy itself.
If someone decides to take without giving, how does your system stop them? Social pressure? Then you’re admitting coercion exists. Violence? Then you’re admitting authority exists. Might makes right. Or do you just let them freeload until the system collapses? Yes, people do help others - but not universally, not equally, and not without incentives or consequences. Capitalism and states channel self-interest into productive outcomes (even if imperfectly). Anarchism relies on self-interest magically aligning with collective good. This is not a mechanism, it’s an ideal, a fantasy.
If anarchists need armed struggle to prevent power, they’re admitting that violence (i.e., coercion) is necessary to maintain their system. But if coercion is allowed, what makes this different (to the point of superiority) from what we currently have?
Like I said in my first post: I’m absolutely NOT saying “capitalism good”. I’m saying it has more functional power than Anarchism.
“Who watches the watchdogs” issue.
The thing is that now we get to the territory where Anarchy always stays pure and perfect, because the moment people drop anarchist ideals in favor of an actually functional alternative, it’s no longer Anarchism. Ideals are nice and all, but lack functional power, which I’ve been saying all the time.
Anarchism would work beautifully - if everyone would just agree and cooperate.
On people giving without taking : Someone taking without giving would be someone sitting around without doing anything. It does not exist, people do things, and most of them are useful to the community. But let’s admit some people just sleep and eat, or let’s admit that you consider people that give less than they take a problem (which it isn’t in anarchy, it is not a meritocratic system) : if that’s just a few (closest to reality), probably not a problem. If it is more than the community can support, then it’s a problem the community has to solve with anarchic means : try talking to get some of them to do stuff, try getting help from other communities,etc. If in a very weird world, it does not change anything, then you just have the possibility to provide help and resources for participative people first.
On preventing power : Your point is that armed struggle is necessary to prevent power, and you then equate prevent power to make the system work. Again, preventing power is not about how the system works, it’s about how the system survives. The difference between current systems and anarchy is that coercion is not needed to make the system work day to day, it is needed in its most primitive force when the system is threatened. Also, you directly skipped all the solutions to try beforehand (educating the people to what power is and how and why to prevent it, watching out symptoms of power, etc.) to just sum it up to “violence”, which is the last resort option. Another difference from the current systems.
On capitalism : it’s all good, i get your point of “it’s the more likely regime to survive, so be it”, and i’m fine with it, it’s a valid point of view, especially nowadays. I’m just struggling with why you need to establish that anarchy has to fail on its own (rather than against power/capitalism) to prove it.
On “pure” anarchism : You could be right to call out “purity” behaviours, they are common in far left movments, i acknowledge that, especially for myself. But here that’s not the case : they are clearly not functioning with anarchist principles, like i explained it’s simply impossible to do because of the concept of server. They are anarchists using non-anarchists means, just like some royalist parties take part in republican systems.
As you are very cautious about what your intentions are, i should be too, my bad if it comes late in the discussion : i’m not saying anarchy is the best system for every one, i’m not saying it’s viable as it is, i’m not saying it is a perfect thing that hurts no one. I think it is the best for me, would be the best for most people weren’t they born under capitalism, and that’s it’s one of the less dangerous form of politics. I understand it has to face powers far more violent and dangerous and therefore far more likely to survive, and i also understand that it has to be conceived from within societies full of capitalist and pro-state assumptions. My main goal is to get you and people to a nuanced take on anarchy, notably that it does not fail inevitably on its own, but is very likely to fail because of capitalism, and is likely to fail on its own if you want (but not inevitably, that’s the absolute i’m trying to fight here).
As I’ve said multiple times in different words, Anarchism would work beautifully in ideal, perfect conditions.
dbzer0 has recalls, if the userbase doesn’t like the mods or admins they can literally vote them out.
So yes you can even have anarchy when a group physically holds the system if they’re willing to let go of holding it.
Interesting, thanks for sharing ! I didnt know much about db0 system, i get from this post that db0 themselves consider it not to be a perfect system (both for the fact that they are the sysadmin and it is still based on their goodwill and the fact that they have to restrict to people donating to prevent manipulation from fake accounts). So to my eyes, there still is bigger problems than just the fact that mods and admins are vocal about their opinions, but I admit that i was too quick to judge that “physical servers = no possibility for anarchy”, there probably is a way to have far closer to anarchism organization than i thought. How does quokk.au works about that ?
Thanks for your input. This convo between you and @asofon@discuss.online is very interesting
What bias was done in the voting? People voted and it was tallied up.
The admins can hold whatever view they want, and they can try to state their case as much as they want, as can every other user, what matters is the overall community vote. Which voted to defederate.
That was entirely democratic, you’re being entirely dishonest and in bad-faith here.
Oh and Animal Farm was written by someone who fought for Anarchists in Spain, and supports Anarchism. It’s a rebuttal of the authleft, not anarchism.