ValyrianJedi t1_j0zcfh6 wrote
This seems pretty full of circular reasoning, and half of the arguments seem to be based on redefining words...
Seems to get stuck in one major loop of "nobody can dominate anybody unless that person is dominating somebody, in which case they can be dominated"... Expecting a world where nobody has any say over anyone else's actions seems both impossible and wildly impractical...
Then it makes the claim that authority would still exist, they just can't tell people what to do. Which in most uses of the word would mean that they aren't actually an authority...
Then since it lists exceptions where it is OK to dominate someone and control their actions (stopping murders, thieves, etc) that opens up a pretty big problem of who decides when it's OK and when it isn't.
Also, the opening line of "Anarchism is the only way of life that has ever worked or ever can" is beyond a stretch, and is likely a great way to lose 90% of your readers before the first paragraph is over.
DreamerofDays t1_j0zno7h wrote
> and half of the arguments seem to be based on redefining words
I would add to this a slavish dedication to purity of concept, both broadly philosophically, but more specifically, linguistically.
> And yet life is anarchic, and all good things within it; including you.
> Nature is anarchic
This is, indeed, an idea that won’t go away— an appeal to nature divorced from knowledge of it.
It’s an argument that’s been used probably as long as we’ve been making arguments. It’s been used to prop up authority, anarchism, domination, freedom, creationism… you name it, we’ve cited “Nature” as our example and our proof.
“Nature”, which so often seems to exclude us or the things we make.(the word therein defined as just being “anything non-human”).
Nature is not your rhetorical monkey(mine neither, for that matter). It is rigid systems to your randomness, randomness to your rigid systems.
It is symptomatic of the author’s overall method here— craning back from their conclusion, anarchy is THE right state of being— to justify it through cherry-picked examples and fatuous pontification.
To be fair, this isn’t the first time I’ve felt this way running into anarchistic argumentation. I don’t know if that speaks to bias on my part, a commonality of those arguments, or both.
trainface_ t1_j0zq2lw wrote
Nature is the blue-footed booby, watching impassively as the larger of her two chicks slowly fights with the smaller for solitude in her shadow.
And she remains so, as the smaller--now just outside her shadow--slowly dies of exposure baking under the hot sun. struggling, and calling for help.
Avemetatarsalia t1_j1032dh wrote
In many areas of modern intellectual thought, the concept of nature has shifted from the old victorian framework of 'red in tooth and claw' to 'nigh-perfect, beautifully optimized clockwork masterpiece of creation that is the ideal state of all things.'
The irony of course is that this newer perception of nature can exist in great part because we as westerners are so shielded from its full fury. We often interact with it in very controlled settings, Toiling away in a suburban garden; taking a pleasant hike through a local park with upkept nature trails and no predators bigger than the occasional skittish coyote; gawking at exotic beasts at the zoo behind the safety of glass and concrete. Every so often we get an unwelcome reminder when a tornado rips through a town or a mountain lion decides to snack on some pets, but otherwise we really don't deal with it in the way our ancestors (or even a sizeable chunk of the world population living in poor rural areas) did/do.
Anyone who actually deeply studies and/or works with nature (myself included) is very aware that nature is absolutely beautiful and incredibly complex, but also devilishly brutal and uncaring in equal measure.
PostponeIdiocracy t1_j1107f1 wrote
People who appeal to nature should be shown the top 10 from r/natureismetal
libretumente t1_j0zynzh wrote
Profound
trainface_ t1_j11oobx wrote
Lol. But it is true. It is the reason the great gay fruit flies debate of the early 2000's felt so stupid, but was spoken about so seriously.
What do I care how fruit flies fuck?
Maybe the world of evolution and animal behavior is not the best place from which to rely for an ethical north star.
tcl33 t1_j0zzj1q wrote
And according to the author’s definition of anarchy as the absence of domination. But nature is nothing BUT domination—strength having its way with weakness. This article is a synthesis of delusion and word salad.
jeffroddit t1_j11ljw2 wrote
>nature is nothing BUT domination—strength having its way with weakness.
lol, did somebody drink too much redbull and listen to too much black metal today?
tcl33 t1_j11mi9z wrote
No, I’ve just seen nature shows.
jeffroddit t1_j121yof wrote
You've never seen a nature show about clownfish and sea anemones? Mycorrhizas, nitrogen fixing bacteria, or pollinators? No cleaner fish, probiotics, or even just a coral reef?
tcl33 t1_j129ter wrote
Ok. Saying nature is nothing BUT strength dominating weakness is slightly hyperbolic. But only slightly. My retort to the author survives.
jeffroddit t1_j12oey7 wrote
And my examples were similarly exaggerated examples of symbiosis. But have you ever been in nature? What is trying to dominate you on even a semi regular basis?
I yelled at a bear once in 4 decades. Does that even count? Yes I carry spray and/or boomsticks for the .01% of the time you might really need to exert some power, but that's pretty much my point. Actual conflict is rare and brief. Think of bunnies. Do they occasionally get disappeared and decapitated by death on wings? Yup, 2 seconds of terror out of 86,000 seconds in their final day. Do they get spooked and run like bunnies from any imagined threat? Sure. And they still spend 99% of their lives asleep or hippity hopping along eating from nature's bounty.
tcl33 t1_j1467ge wrote
Brutal inter-species dominance hierarchies pervade the natural world. E.g., the food chain. And brutal intra-species competition for resources and mates determines who eats, and who fucks.
The fact that I happen to be a human at the top of the food chain just makes me an exception that proves the rule. I dominate most of the rest of the natural world.
But even I don't dominate all of it. Bacteria are constantly attempting to dominate me and my fellow humans. And sometimes they win.
The author said that an anarchism without domination is natural. It is not.
jeffroddit t1_j14vhwg wrote
I can see over a dozen animal species and hundreds of non-animal species at this very second. Guess how much brutality I see?
But by all means, keep anthropomorphizing nature and pretending you are better than people who do it slightly differently than you do.
Sventipluk OP t1_j0ze1yw wrote
> Then it makes the claim that authority would still exist, they just can't tell people what to do. Which in most uses of the word would mean that they aren't actually an authority...
The article makes the distinction between being an authority and being in authority. In the first case one is forced to obey, in the second one does so voluntarily.
ValyrianJedi t1_j0zec1n wrote
Right. I'm saying that the latter isn't really authority by most uses of the word.
OldGentleBen t1_j0zkiga wrote
Which word would be better suited and cause less confusion?
GameMusic t1_j0zx588 wrote
You attack the thought by your objection with his wording but that is pretty much compatible with his point
Words are built in systems and making original points requires either new words or a temporary best fit redefinition
It does not matter whether authority can be classified within one word but two different ideas by the linguistic taste you have personally developed
The difference was stated without confusion either way
OctopusButter t1_j10cpet wrote
Now we just moved on from talking about the subject and just started going all pedantic on grammar. He has a point, you can't just use words and decide they mean something different for you. In and an authority makes no difference if it is voluntary for me to obey. Where is the authority?
GameMusic t1_j10ew6t wrote
"Doctor Expert is an authority on healthy habits"
jeffroddit t1_j11mfrq wrote
I'm widely regarded as an authority in the design of smoke detectors. Yet nobody regards me as the smoke detector authority.
Also, I'm not really an authority on smoke detectors, but I have used it as a disguise before. Turns out most people really don't know anything about smoke detectors so you can sound authoritative with a minimum of research.
VitriolicViolet t1_j15o24t wrote
so what happens when someone decides not to?
if i choose 'no' and happen to be the largest producer of food for x region i can simply dominate. offer food to enough people to form my own militia and then only give food to those who do what i want.
you have no answer to this that isnt itself facing the same issue (the defence force is the easiest way to get your own militia, even if you didnt bribe them what if they did the same thing? were up to minor civil war now).
how do you prevent someone with resources using those resources to slowly gain control?
anarchy and libertarianism both rely on far too much hippy BS to ever function (no system ever conceived has survived the wealthy, ever)
unripenedboyparts t1_j0zu6cd wrote
>Also, the opening line of "Anarchism is the only way of life that has ever worked or ever can" is beyond a stretch, and is likely a great way to lose 90% of your readers before the first paragraph is over.
I dunno, I might have lost interest if it weren't for that insufferably contrarian take. I'm tempted to think it's bait and I fell for it.
The only way I can redeem that claim is by arguing that anarchism has never truly been instituted, and therefore has a lower failure rate than other systems. Sort of like communism as Marx envisioned it.
Fluggernuffin t1_j11334v wrote
It's been said already that anarchism is not an end, rather a process by which we make what we have better.
Anarchy as a system will never be a thing institutionally, as that is contrary to the very nature of anarchy. The author points this out, that anarchy isn't organized in the traditional sense, but rather organically. I think he actually illustrates this well by using examples of friendship. People don't generally take well to a forced friendship; they would rather happen upon it organically--if it happens, it happens. Anarchy supposes this as a universal good. If life can thrive organically without a dominant, that life is better for it.
I don't think anyone could successfully argue that anarchy in its purest form, without any dominant, is possible. Rather, how can we remove the most pervasive dominants that we no longer require to thrive?
unripenedboyparts t1_j13g322 wrote
Oh, I'm not saying there's no redeeming qualities to the piece, just that some of its assertions are ludicrous. Especially the ones made in the beginning. Sort of reminds me of the Motte and Bailey thing where someone pushes their luck and then backtracks to a more reasonable claim.
ICLazeru t1_j0zzyy0 wrote
Yes, in my experience arguments for anarchy as a workable system rely heavily on like...everyone just being cool, man. Which might work in a small community but is just not going to work on any scale much beyond Dunbar's number.
onlycrazypeoplesmile t1_j0zxaod wrote
It's always okay to stop a murder or a theft. These are abhorrent actions against humanity.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments