I agree, currently. However, there is a general advancement in knowledge, and just because something hasn’t been solved yet doesn’t mean it can’t ever be solved.
So yes, there are best case scenarios, and balancing measurable benefits for many people vs. freedom and liberty for as many people individually - that’s a balancing act since life forms first developed pack interaction.
Anarchism is to me a pursuit of an ideal that we may never attain, but worth pursuing and trying to make work. And who knows - maybe with a post-money society with the effectively infinite resources of the whole galaxy, we can even make it happen.
I agree with the rest of your post, but this thinking to me is muddled. Mathematics involves solutions, zero sum and all that. Issues within cultures, societies, and economics only involve best case scenarios for certain sectors of an economy or a society. Anarchism isn’t a solution for rentiers, nor a solution for inherited wealth, and it isn’t a solution for anyone who gets special privilege from a non-Anarchist (is that even a word?) arrangement. It might be an better arrangement for an awful lot of people (or not), but it isn’t a solution.
So the answer is political involvement forcing the polity toward a better system for most, if they can agree on a best case system, but there is no one utopian answer to satisfy all, ever.
Why does everyone love anarchy so much? It’s a nanosecond affair. You’re dealing with humans. One of them will seek to rise above the others. Always. Again and again. That’s not ‘anarchy’ - that’s hierarchy. Most people will yield and submit.
For one to rise above the others there has to be a social structure which has different levels. That doesn’t fall from the sky, it’s a choice that some people make, and has generally been established with a great deal of violence.
Academia in capitalist cultures, especially the u.s., have fallen victim to the culture of plenty. The countercultural scholars, artists and writers of our generation loved to rail against the status quo while their savings accounts, vacations and health insurance plans all were taken care of.
Now that technology and capitalism have simultaneously destroyed both academic privilege (continued removal of tenure through commercialization of universities) and payment for art (iTunes and amazon for writers and artists), those that made up the hypothetical future ranks of these now valueless social hierarchies can get to work on building something against the inevitable takeover of robots owned by assholes.
I read it as saying that equality and abundance is the definition of communism: i.e., if you have equality [of outcome] and abundance, then ipso facto you have communism.
Note that the communist countries never actually achieved communism, nor (IIRC) did they claim to have done so: it was always a work in progress. Under Marxist theory, the communist society was explicitly envisaged as anarchistic: the state would “wither away”. Where the Marxists and anarchists parted company was the former’s belief that stateless communism could be achieved by authoritarian means: the anarchists considered this to be analogous to fucking for virginity.
The rank and file of unions believed in fraternity. Maybe they still do.
I can’t explain for libertarian-capitialist anarchism, but I have one explanation how libertarian-socialist anarchism would stop that.
Instead of it being billions of people with no organisation, it would be a federation of small groups around 200 people in size (this is not a hard limit, you could just go with what works for you collectively, but Dunbar’s number is the limiting factor). There will almost certainly be higher groupings, federations of federations, but the power is at the bottom. Direct democracy, one person, one vote.
Suppose someone somewhere decides to take power. If they take control of one group then the wider federation will kick that group out, cutting them off from the benefits of being part of it. They could attempt a coup, but with only a couple of hundred people at most they might find it hard.
I don’t see anarchism as meaning “no system”, or “no hierarchy”. For me an anarchist system can involve leaders and structure - as pack primates that’s just about impossible for us to avoid anyway. Just no masters. “Masters” being defined as people who can inflict their will on others through the power of their position in the structure alone - regardless of that master’s individual qualities, the value of their argument, or even their ability to convince people.
This is an idealist position of course. As mentioned previously, any anarchist system is going to have to deal with cases where the good of everyone means someone is compelled against their will. Mental illness and criminality are two examples of this.
I just see anarchism as striving for a system where people are put in the position where they have to yield and submit as little as possible.
Yup. Anarchy is like a dream-state, or some rare particle: it can only exist for the briefest of moments. The human mind cannot cope without organisation and structure. Perfect anarchy will spawn multiple organisational points driven by people suffering from the chaos, and also open the doors to the egomaniacs who will still be egomaniacs.
Hence someone violent comes along and forms a “nation”. And so on.
For the best of freedom, we need a sophisticated and high functioning system of resource allocation and support.
Or false realities. Like the Matrix. (Horrible thought, eh?). Think of the advances in technology and the apparent companionship offered to elderly people by simple robots with interesting interfaces. Gosh - we couldn’t so easily be fooled as humans, could we?!?!
Morelly described what would have been a utopia in 1750s France, and influenced many socialist and communist thinkers in the following century, some of whom called themselves anarchist or libertarian. What I believe is descended from those thinkers, particularly those who knew that utopias aren’t perfect and need constant care and maintenance, as well as the ability to adapt to currently unknown situations.
I am in agreement that “anarcho-capitalism” leads to chaos and despotism, but I would describe their beliefs as anomie rather than anarchy.
Anomie - I only recently came across that! Durkheim, he filled a gap in my mind!
I’ve been reading Iain M. Banks’ Culture series of novels - post-scarcity etc. It all still needs oversight, which is a shame, but is the human burden.
I look at the USA in its current state and wonder whether the writers of the original constitution would have been happy with the outcome.
Do note I place a higher value on freedom than virtually anything. The question is, what do people do when they benefit from freedom?
