What is your proposed method of keeping the peace and making intelligent decisions that effect things on a large scale in the context of an anarchism?

Aug 2018
250
79
USA
The state is the invention of humanity, no state is everlasting, no state is perfect, and all states are tyrannical at least to some degree if you consider tyranny as a spectrum. The state will be transcended, either through destruction or reform, there will always be a state of anarchy before and after every state. Assuming there is not a mere collapse of a state and it's replacement with another, or some apocalyptic scenario, the time when the state is transcended could potentially be another step in the right direction socio-economically. But when there is no state, what will replace it? What will stop people from murdering each other, and how will we make decisions as a society?

There are 4 ways that decisions are generally made in the context of government/society. Through the mere mandate of authority, through a democratic process, through some form of scientific methodology or through the personal decisions of individuals.

Authority would defeat the purpose of anarchy, democracy is mere mob rule when it's not paired with one of the other four, scientific methodology is good and objective but also not good on it's own, and the decisions made by individuals are often good for themselves or maybe a few others but on it's own it would make for a very disorganized society to say the least.

So what if we removed authority and replaced it with a mixture of democracy, methodology and individual choice? That would be enough to account for keeping the peace and making rational decisions as a society without a state if executed properly. I can elaborate on this if you want, or you can provide your own perspective.
 
May 2019
244
29
US
The state is the invention of humanity, no state is everlasting, no state is perfect, and all states are tyrannical at least to some degree if you consider tyranny as a spectrum. The state will be transcended, either through destruction or reform, there will always be a state of anarchy before and after every state. Assuming there is not a mere collapse of a state and it's replacement with another, or some apocalyptic scenario, the time when the state is transcended could potentially be another step in the right direction socio-economically. But when there is no state, what will replace it? What will stop people from murdering each other, and how will we make decisions as a society?

There are 4 ways that decisions are generally made in the context of government/society. Through the mere mandate of authority, through a democratic process, through some form of scientific methodology or through the personal decisions of individuals.

Authority would defeat the purpose of anarchy, democracy is mere mob rule when it's not paired with one of the other four, scientific methodology is good and objective but also not good on it's own, and the decisions made by individuals are often good for themselves or maybe a few others but on it's own it would make for a very disorganized society to say the least.

So what if we removed authority and replaced it with a mixture of democracy, methodology and individual choice? That would be enough to account for keeping the peace and making rational decisions as a society without a state if executed properly. I can elaborate on this if you want, or you can provide your own perspective.
You give 4 ways to reach governmental/societal decisions; authority, democracy, scientific method, and individually.
You object to authority based on it defeating the purpose of anarchy. First, we should ask, what do you believe the purpose of anarchy is?
If authority is problematic, then it is problematic throughout. Democracy is little more than the authority of numbers. Imposing decisions arrived at democratically still takes authority. When the voters do it themselves, it’s mob rule (might makes right). If mob rule is not acceptable, some authority has to be instituted to impose on the voters behalf.
Scientific methodology is great for getting us to our goals, but can do nothing to choose those goals. So how are goals decided? What authority ensures the goals chosen are adhered to?
Having a general scientific method does not ensure unity of thought. There is tons of scientific disagreement, even on what methodology to use. What authority chooses the methodology, or insures unity of methodology? Who has the authority to choose between two opposing but scientifically valid theories?
Lastly is personal decision making. You are the authority in that, unless someone, maybe a small democratic mob, forces your hand. Maybe they said their choice for you is more rational, but you disagree. What is your recourse? Seek a larger gang/vote? Find another way to fight them?
The negative image of anarchy arrises because it is understood that people have disagreements, have limited perception, and some have ill-motives. To bring stability to man’s situation in a state of nature, you cannot abandon the concept of authority.
 
Aug 2018
250
79
USA
You give 4 ways to reach governmental/societal decisions; authority, democracy, scientific method, and individually.
You object to authority based on it defeating the purpose of anarchy. First, we should ask, what do you believe the purpose of anarchy is?
If authority is problematic, then it is problematic throughout. Democracy is little more than the authority of numbers. Imposing decisions arrived at democratically still takes authority. When the voters do it themselves, it’s mob rule (might makes right). If mob rule is not acceptable, some authority has to be instituted to impose on the voters behalf.
Scientific methodology is great for getting us to our goals, but can do nothing to choose those goals. So how are goals decided? What authority ensures the goals chosen are adhered to?
Having a general scientific method does not ensure unity of thought. There is tons of scientific disagreement, even on what methodology to use. What authority chooses the methodology, or insures unity of methodology? Who has the authority to choose between two opposing but scientifically valid theories?
Lastly is personal decision making. You are the authority in that, unless someone, maybe a small democratic mob, forces your hand. Maybe they said their choice for you is more rational, but you disagree. What is your recourse? Seek a larger gang/vote? Find another way to fight them?
The negative image of anarchy arrises because it is understood that people have disagreements, have limited perception, and some have ill-motives. To bring stability to man’s situation in a state of nature, you cannot abandon the concept of authority.
The purpose of anarchy is so that no one is oppressed and so that decisions in society aren't made just to benefit those in charge. Democracy IS mob rule unless it is not an absolute democracy and the masses are much less stupid and thus capable of making logical decisions. When it comes to deciding our goals, that is something we decide based on what is the most logical, progress-inducing and mutually beneficial course of action. And the one who decides which methodology to use I suppose is the smartest one, but due to the balance between individuals, democracy and methodology it can't really be forced on anyone, society would just listen (if the culture was enlightened, this does not at all apply to humans as they are conditioned to think now) to whoever had the soundest methodology and the best ideas because that is the best apparent thing to do.

You say we need authority, but without individual choices, democracy and methodology alongside the mere mandate of authority what good is authority in and of itself? The problems you bring up with the other 3 are mitigated by each other's presence, we would be protected from mob rule by methodology and individual liberty, we would be protected from individual selfishness by democracy and methodology, we would be protected from being a cold calculating technocratic dictatorship by democracy and the will of individuals keeping the methodology based in achieving what is good for the people.

Why does the mere "because I say so" factor of someone having a socially constructed position of authority have any relevance in a rational society? The only authority we need is the authority of individuals over themselves, the authority of the community over the means of production, and the authority of what is objectively logical.
 
May 2019
244
29
US
The purpose of anarchy is so that no one is oppressed and so that decisions in society aren't made just to benefit those in charge. Democracy IS mob rule unless it is not an absolute democracy and the masses are much less stupid and thus capable of making logical decisions. When it comes to deciding our goals, that is something we decide based on what is the most logical, progress-inducing and mutually beneficial course of action. And the one who decides which methodology to use I suppose is the smartest one, but due to the balance between individuals, democracy and methodology it can't really be forced on anyone, society would just listen (if the culture was enlightened, this does not at all apply to humans as they are conditioned to think now) to whoever had the soundest methodology and the best ideas because that is the best apparent thing to do.

You say we need authority, but without individual choices, democracy and methodology alongside the mere mandate of authority what good is authority in and of itself? The problems you bring up with the other 3 are mitigated by each other's presence, we would be protected from mob rule by methodology and individual liberty, we would be protected from individual selfishness by democracy and methodology, we would be protected from being a cold calculating technocratic dictatorship by democracy and the will of individuals keeping the methodology based in achieving what is good for the people.

Why does the mere "because I say so" factor of someone having a socially constructed position of authority have any relevance in a rational society? The only authority we need is the authority of individuals over themselves, the authority of the community over the means of production, and the authority of what is objectively logical.
You make the case that democracy will check individualism and both will check the technocracy. But none of the above will check either without authority being vested in each. That’s my point.

Authority isn’t good “in and of itself”, but it is what makes other institutions substantial. If democracy is good, then the authority to implement the will of the majority is good. If democracy is not good, neither is its authority. The Individual cannot counter the mob without an established authoritative institution to that effect, and people willing to maintain that institution “by force”. Without it, the individual is no obstacle to a mob, and we are back to simple “might makes right”.

An institution of scientific method as societal guide has its own set of issues.
You want to determine goals “based on what is the most logical, progress-inducing and mutually beneficial course of action”. All of this presupposes the existence of a goal beforehand. Goals aren’t arrived at logically except with regard to other fundamental goals. That’s because logic does not make the value judgment. What’s more logical; riding a bike or relaxing? Well, depends on what your goal is.

“Progress-inducing” too presupposes the goal. Otherwise there is nothing to progress toward.

“Mutually beneficial” depends entirely on the goals and values of those involved, and we haven’t established those goals yet.

You want authority on what methodology to use to be “the smartest one”. No doubt the smartest person would be determined according to some methodology...you see the problem there.

You also said that everyone would just listen if they were enlightened, but they would not listen as they are today. No doubt you understand that this is what makes the totalitarian state, the tyranny of the proletariat essential in the first place. Society needs a “cultural revolution” to make a “great leap forward” before everyone is enlightened enough to agree with reason. There have been those who have tried precisely this. The outcomes are consistently disastrous.
Alternatively, it may be the case that large masses of people will never follow what you suppose to be enlightened ideas. Maybe those ideas aren’t enlightened at all, or maybe people do not function the way you suppose.
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
41,272
29,553
La La Land North
*SNIP*

So what if we removed authority and replaced it with a mixture of democracy, methodology and individual choice? That would be enough to account for keeping the peace and making rational decisions as a society without a state if executed properly. I can elaborate on this if you want, or you can provide your own perspective.
The purpose of anarchy is so that no one is oppressed and so that decisions in society aren't made just to benefit those in charge.

*SNIP*
It is the proper execution that is the kicker. So there is not oppression in your anarchy. Then what is there to stop someone amassing a small army and just stealing things because it's fun? You would need some form of law and enforcement and you are just on your way to creating another government because then you would need someone to hire and command those who accomplish this. And this is just one example.
 
Aug 2018
250
79
USA
You make the case that democracy will check individualism and both will check the technocracy. But none of the above will check either without authority being vested in each. That’s my point.

Authority isn’t good “in and of itself”, but it is what makes other institutions substantial. If democracy is good, then the authority to implement the will of the majority is good. If democracy is not good, neither is its authority. The Individual cannot counter the mob without an established authoritative institution to that effect, and people willing to maintain that institution “by force”. Without it, the individual is no obstacle to a mob, and we are back to simple “might makes right”.

An institution of scientific method as societal guide has its own set of issues.
You want to determine goals “based on what is the most logical, progress-inducing and mutually beneficial course of action”. All of this presupposes the existence of a goal beforehand. Goals aren’t arrived at logically except with regard to other fundamental goals. That’s because logic does not make the value judgment. What’s more logical; riding a bike or relaxing? Well, depends on what your goal is.

“Progress-inducing” too presupposes the goal. Otherwise there is nothing to progress toward.

“Mutually beneficial” depends entirely on the goals and values of those involved, and we haven’t established those goals yet.

You want authority on what methodology to use to be “the smartest one”. No doubt the smartest person would be determined according to some methodology...you see the problem there.

You also said that everyone would just listen if they were enlightened, but they would not listen as they are today. No doubt you understand that this is what makes the totalitarian state, the tyranny of the proletariat essential in the first place. Society needs a “cultural revolution” to make a “great leap forward” before everyone is enlightened enough to agree with reason. There have been those who have tried precisely this. The outcomes are consistently disastrous.
Alternatively, it may be the case that large masses of people will never follow what you suppose to be enlightened ideas. Maybe those ideas aren’t enlightened at all, or maybe people do not function the way you suppose.
The authority that comes from democracy or methodology is not authority in the same sense. Authority in the classical sense means that an individual has power over other individuals, and what they say goes simply because they have authority. Democratic authority is a kind where one person does not have more of a say than another, but rather it is the collective decision that has the authority. Methodology is impersonal, there is no mandate involved, just someone pointing to something that objectively works or at least appears to be the best option. Methodology can be abused sure, but not when the community itself has the power and everyone is allowed to propose something rather than any institution or handful of social engineers being in charge of it.

When it comes to establishing the goals for society it is a lot more obvious than you might think. The most logical things to strive for are progress technologically and knowledge-wise, to build upon ecosystems, life and even existence itself rather than destroy them or let them be destroyed, and to create conditions that are optimal for everything and everyone in general. These are objectively the highest ideals and the purest standard of achievement as a civilization. The best part is, it works for everyone, and unless people are stupid enough to try and stop it and the masses are stupid enough to let them it cannot fail, because basing a civilization on those ideals would make it so that what is in your best interest is that which is in civilizations interest because the economy would be based on co-operation rather than competition. There would be no incentive to be a greedy/destructive person because you would get more out of life by being part of that civilization than you ever could by f&%@ing it over. It would be like stealing one cookie from the pan and burning your own fingers when you could have just helped bake them and gotten as many as you want.

As for determining the "smartest" one that would be done by the methodologies they propose. No one person or group would be held above the rest, like I said everyone would be free to propose something and whatever works the best is what we will go with. Whoever has the best ideas is listened to, but not in the sense that they have authority, because we are talking about a rational society where people are conditioned to have critical thinking skills and to understand much more than what people generally understand now. If that was not the case, nothing I am saying could work.

The "tyranny of the proletariat" you speak of was just Marx's way of saying "democracy". When you read the communist manifesto it can sound scary and evil if you don't know where he is coming from in the context of his philosophy as a whole but what he was really going for is a socialist republic run by democratically elected leaders in the communist party of whatever nation is theoretically transitioning to communism. The state is not supposed to be a dictatorship, but rather the part of the proletariat that plans and organizes things and is totally subject to the collective will of the community. The state was supposed to "wither away" as people become more capable of self governance and organizing themselves as a collective.
 
Aug 2018
250
79
USA
It is the proper execution that is the kicker. So there is not oppression in your anarchy. Then what is there to stop someone amassing a small army and just stealing things because it's fun? You would need some form of law and enforcement and you are just on your way to creating another government because then you would need someone to hire and command those who accomplish this. And this is just one example.
Reason and methodology along with collective ownership of the means of production and individual liberty will replace government.
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
41,272
29,553
La La Land North
Reason and methodology along with collective ownership of the means of production and individual liberty will replace government.
Totally unjustified optimism, IMO. So many conservative people say there has never been a successful socialist country. Well, that is debatable depending on how "pure" a definition of socialism you choose to impose.

But there is no example of a stable anarchy existing for any length of time.
 
Jul 2014
16,054
10,344
massachusetts
You do it the way all successful anarchistic societies have done it.....you keep it all hypothetical.
Just like all successful anarchistic societies are hypothetical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RNG