In that case, you really need to do something about self styled "anarchists" on social media declaring that they can do any evil to fight evil, so long as they use just a little less evil.
From what I can see, thought leadership doesn't reach the "anarchist" on the street, leaving them to wallow in a toxic tribalism which is welcoming of nihilistic violence. Have all the erudite debates you want. Others are presenting a far different face to the public. The fact that the media will then dissemble and cover for such actions and attitudes then makes it all much worse.
Or is it ok to use evil to fight evil, so long as you use a little less?
But there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and just override you.
There is a brand of "anarchist" which is doing just this in 2018.
But that's a winning strategy. And don't think the assholes won't notice. Then they get groups.
The history of scenes, groups, and movements of all kinds tells us that such things are started by idealists, but eventually get suborned by sociopaths. So quite often, the assholes will come over and take over your group as well.
I don't think anarchism is evil, just naive.
What's metaphorical and paved with best intentions?
I don’t think you should be speaking for anarchists unless you are one yourself & embedded in that community. As a non-anarchist who is sometimes in coalition with them on certain issues I have a very different impression of their view on this matter. I don’t think you can claim their support for your slippery slope / free speech absolutist position.
Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism
Plenty of people demonize capitalism.
Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures.
So you're admitting that it's a losing proposition for getting anything done? The banner of anarchy seems to be good at organizing people into building weapons, collecting fireworks as munitions, and organizing tactics to be able to get away with assault and vandalism. You can see the violence online in videos, and I've personally been to places where those weapons are made and stored.
People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom.
AFAICT, this is generally how people are put together.
I (used to, pre-covid) see daily plenty people cutting bus lanes, so these exist, and what you going to do to protect society from them? even a stern look is not the anarchist way.
most sport teams have a captain and a trainer and most volunteer forces are under supervision of more experienced staff around here. sure they don't strictly command the squad, but they're the one responsible for organizing participant to minimize internal and external friction
that capitalism is unfair is so generic it's extremely disingenuous to make that critique as a sign of anarchism
there's quite a logical jump from "two wrongs don’t make a right" to "abolish the criminal justice system", which isn't about punishment to begin with in most societies.
"Pretty much every achievement has been based on cooperation and mutual aid" - pretty much most of the contemporary technological jump came from wwii, and the modern technological jump came from private holdings competing and one upping one another.
"Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil" uh, there's psychopathology that need to be cured; how many people submitted to rehab vs how many people were forced into?
"certain sorts of people are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters? " of curse I wouldn't call them "inferior" and "ruling", but some people require continuous assistance or guidance. this question has been loaded with negative term to cause a certain predefined answer to seem the only right answer. ask yourself is someone with dementia would need a tutor to manage their finances instead and help them trough surviving in decent condition, and suddenly the answer is not as much black and white.
hope this is because it's a very short essay to a large introductory text, because otherwise is severely lacking both in arguments and the logic by which what's there has been built.
That's the trouble with anarchism and its fellows: you can start from whatever set of premises you like, but sooner or later, you always find yourself either mired in irrelevance or earnestly explaining how, in order to bring about a better world for everyone, it is absolutely necessary and morally imperative to murder millions of people and build mountains out of their skulls, which is okay, because it's not everyone but just the bad people, and if they weren't bad people then you wouldn't have to murder them, so it's all their fault really, and it's easy to tell how bad they are by the way you're murdering them.
People mean different things when they say they're anarchist. This article describes a mix of libertarianism, humanism and egalitarianism that is quite admirable. But many anarchists are willing to use violence against anything or anyone they perceive as powerful or oppressive, and it's pretty easy to frame pretty much anyone you disagree with in those terms. There's a reason that anarchism is associated with violent stereotypes. I personally prefer to identify with values like egalitarianism and humanitarianism without a label like anarchism that is often associated with violence that I disagree with and don't want to be even remotely associated with.
Not all anarchists are ultra-leftists bent on controlling thoughts through the control of speech. Some even say anarchism is about individual freedom above everything else, including above "minority" groups.
Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. When Noam Chomsky is your most famous public personality it's hard to build a broad and passionate following.
I don't see it getting anything like mainstream traction ever, as it's a lifestyle as much as it is a philosophy. I also don't think it's how people naturally behave. People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom.
I have observed anarchists generally don't like being told what to do. That is not a judgement. Just observed behavior leading to an obvious conclusion.
To be fair here, I don't like being told what to do.
When the machinery of society is running well, lives are reasonable, etc... these people continue to advocate and agitate, but the masses will generally go with what is easy, reasonable.
It's all pretty harmless.
Now consider the case when said machinery is not running well, is unjust, and generally not reasonable.
Suddenly, that advocacy and agitation takes greater root. Screw being told what to do, essentially.
Society sees greater unrest and in general the basic social contracts come into question.
From whatever establishment happens to be in majority control point of view, anarchists and others willing to subvert are bad, harmful elements that should be avoided and or dealt with more formally.
Seems to me that is not harmful at all, may even be beneficial, a self correcting mechanism of sorts.
Anarchists are simply a necessary artifact of human nature.
The T-cells of society.
The remedy is not to condemn anarchists, or consider their ideas irrelevant.
It is to run society better. Make the basic deal sexy, compelling enough that people will accept being told what to do in return for a modest, reasonable, dignified life.
Edit: From discussions with an anarchist friend:
When the common man, labor, the basic, necessary classes are abused, overexploited, they are offended. It may be they are members of said class too. So there is clear self interest.
Agency really matters. Potential does too. Overly totalitarian society tends to labor to excess and snuff out being human.
Social democracy is largely comparable with anarchism. Rule by democracy, not by purse, or bloodline, army, or god.
This exchange seems to support my observations above.
Nice weekend lark! This discussion here, along with a couple I will have with others will prove interesting and informative.
If nothing else, I suspect many of us, if we are truly seeking info like this, will understand one another better.
This is completely untrue though. Yes, some people are and will continue to be complete assholes who will take advantage of any kind of situation, but pretty much all evidence point towards people banding together and helping each other in times of crises.
Its corporations and billionaires and dictators being able to mobilize massive amounts of wealth and/or people that lead to terrible outcomes. So anarchists are completely correct: their tenets reduced to the simple slogan of 'no gods, no masters' is the only fundamentally correct ideology.
People are defined by their actions not by their own propaganda.
Civil rights activists fight against power systems, revolutionaries fought for representation: anarchists are violent thugs who pretend to be activists to justify violence towards anyone who doesn't share their ideology.
Understanding the obvious discrepancy between the words of anarchists and their actions is important part of being politically mature.
Anarchists already have a negative label: edgy people who pretend to be brave by wearing a mask and beating people / phone boxes because there's something wrong in their lives. If you don't believe that fine, trying to convince you of anything would be like trying to convince any other (moon landing / flat earth / building 7) conspiracy theorist. Enjoy your early twenties.
“Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.”
No, pretty much everyone, even the staunchest opponents of anarchism, thinks human beings are capable of that. Anarchists are people who believe that people are not merely capable of that, but alo have a universal enough tendency to act in an irrationally altruistic manner without external constraint that external constraint is not necessary to prevent widespread harm inflicted by even a small minority of transgressors seizing opportunity for unjustified gain at the expense of others. I get that this piece is intended to be a less subtle form for anarchism of what the “world's smallest political quiz” is for libertarianism; propaganda to convince people that despite disagreeing with most substantive political positions taken by most anarchists they've ever encounter they are nonetheless closet anarchists, but come on.
anarchists are under no such illusions. it's always been illegal to be an anarchist.
only people who believe they deserve power are confused when power is used against them.
it's understood that centralized platforms will continue to experience controversy and censorship until most people give up and move to federated and resistant media.
From what I can see, thought leadership doesn't reach the "anarchist" on the street, leaving them to wallow in a toxic tribalism which is welcoming of nihilistic violence. Have all the erudite debates you want. Others are presenting a far different face to the public. The fact that the media will then dissemble and cover for such actions and attitudes then makes it all much worse.
Or is it ok to use evil to fight evil, so long as you use a little less?
reply