You must log in or register to comment.
Anarchy sounds good to me then someone asks “Who’d fix the sewers?”
edit: This is lyrics from The Dead Kennedy’s “Where Do You Draw the Line?”
Anarchist response would be “people who want functioning sewers, which should be everybody.”
Yeah it’s a dirty job. So is wiping your ass. Does someone need to threaten you to wipe your ass? Take a shower? When your toilet breaks at home do you shrug and just shit on the bathroom floor?
No, you fix the toilet. Same with the sewers.
Ok and who does that end up being?
Whoever steps up first. For a sewer, probably several people. What’s your point?
Most aren’t capable ir willing to do this work without substantial compensation above and beyond what most jobs provide.
Given that an anarchist society wouldn’t have capitalists, I Imagine that wages, if they still existed, would be substantially different than they are today.
I would think the desire for flush toilets would be enough, but if you think people need extrinsic motivation there is room for that.
I have mucked a sewer line before. I don’t think anyone who hasn’t actually handled sewage should really take a second to ask if they would step up to do this and are they even capable of doing so (I cannot at 50 do this anymore).
This is where anti-capitalist ideologies have a shortcoming that needs to be considered as we have to move away from capitalism.
I can’t deny there are dirty jobs that nobody would do on a lark or as a hobby or even a calling.
A busted sewer is a community emergency. You can ask the infirm, the pregnant, the elderly “what are you willing to do to support our efforts to fix the sewer?” And the answer might be cook some large meals, care for the children, or take someone’s regular job for a week
Yes, everyone will be side eyeing young, strong, men (and maybe women) to take the lead on fixing the sewer. There might be promises to make it up to them later. A fifty year old with carpentry experience might offer to expand a house install new cabinets if they will help with the sewer. I do think there are things that others can do to support a major effort like that.
My experience organizing non-profit events have shown that most people actually have no problem doing dirty jobs for no material compensation. If the following things are true:
- They understand why the job is important
- They feel responsible for the job (usually comes from being given autonomy and trust)
- They get recognition for doing it (social rewards are actually very powerful)
- No one else is getting compensated either.
I understand that this seems foreign to a lot of people, because this is not how work is generally motivated in capitalist society. You are used to your job being rather unimportant, with little autonomy, little trust, not much recognition from society and some people definitely profiting more than others. Your primary motivator is the threat of violence (via homelessness, starvation etc.), so it’s hard to imagine what would happen if that was removed.
That to me is the core idea of Anarchism, to base your organization on volontary cooperation rather than coercion.
An interesting side-note is that the people who do the dirty jobs in these circumstances often take great pride in it, forming an identify around doing what others are not willing to and calling attention to it as a way to get more recognition.
non-profit events and mucking a sewer are very different.
I assumed it was just a very dirty, tough job requiring some specialized equipment and skills. Are you saying it’s somehow fundamentally different from other human activities?
Yes I believe organizing and doing are very different and sewer work falls firmly into an area of work that most wouldn’t do without substantial gain for that work. Humans are not inherently altruistic on that level
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, when I said “organizing” I meant everything required to run an event (with thousands attending). From planning and programming to picking trash and cleaning toilets.
Having cleaned many toilets it is nowhere nearly as unpleasant as the life risking work that can take place in a sewer system.
Someone doesn’t understand what anarchism is. Opinion discarded. Please read a book and return.
This is the opportunity to share resources and give them a direction to head, and you missed it.
deleted by creator
A lot of people think it means total chaos, but it really just means an opposition to hierarchy.
People living comfortable lives will rationalize any critique of the system away, even if that comfort is built upon emiseration and exploitation.
The end goal of civilization.
Stateless, Egalitarian societies.
People calling themselves anarchists seem to reliably be less of a red flag than when they call themselves communists.
I think there’s a lot of sentiment to sympathize with and a lot of ideas to learn about.
Implementation of anarchism seems hard and maybe sometimes a bit naïve, but on the other hand I don’t actually understand the specifics nor is there any one opinion.
Anarvhism refers to a vlass of ideologies moreso than any one in specific.
I don’t think practically you could end up with a state of anarchism because it implies that humans can exist in a power vacuum. Something will always fill that vacuum. Now, the question is what is that thing? It can take a lot of forms. The goal should be to make it serve the qualitative needs of most people - food, shelter, well being, safety. People advocating for true anarchy are usually doing so from a naive idealism. Idealism is often good, but sometimes ignores other factors that make the ideal impossible to achieve.
coupled with communism it’s the real shit
Genuinely thought that said “anachronism” and was ready to go on a tirade about how cool cloaks are and how they should make a comeback
Fuck yeah, I’d wear a cloak.
Nestor Makhno and his Makhnovists weren’t perfect but I think its probably the closest we’re going to get to seeing a working anarchist society. It seemed like it worked for a short time.
Also note the mutial aid systems that spring up in the wake of some disasters could probably be considered temporary anarchist societies. Rebecca Solenit wrote a book about this but I haven’t gotten a chance to read it yet. A Paradise Built in Hell. I hear its good but I can’t say that with firsthand knowledge
It rules!
I see it as a guideline for how society could be structured after the elimination of class.
- What led to the Haymarket Massacre, which might have been the main catalyst behind the 8-hour workday… So I cannot hate it out of principle
- Seems reasonable but I don’t know how to actually implement it
- For some reason is more associated with Anarcho-Capitalism rather than the other variants, which I thought was… Interesting
It was the way for most of human history. And I’m not saying that in a good way, like “it’s totally normal, we should not be afraid of it.” I think the past was a uniformly awful time that’s slowly been getting better.
Anarchy working well depends on the people involved. Though at this point, we live in such a rules based world that I wonder if anyone would be able to function entirely without.
There are already people living this lifestyle, unfortunately one only has the choice if you have lots of money.
Lots of money? Do you actually know any anarchists? Living in communal squat houses and dumpster diving for food is the lifestyle that comes to mind for me.
I think there’s a reason anarchists aren’t migrating in droves to anarchies like Haiti or Somalia.
being ruled by warlords is not anarchist.
The point stands though. Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum. There is no way to achieve a power vacuum, it will be quickly filled — the most basic way it is filled is by dictators and warlords. You want to live in a power vacuum? Ask yourself how you will enforce it and suddenly you’re no longer talking about anarchy.
Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum
power vacuums are fictions deployed by imperialist forces to justify regime change
? No, power vacuums can exist and are quickly filled by any group with a modicum of power. Look at ISIS. The US deposed the Iraqi government. The new government was weak and those with a stockpile of weapons and funding from other interested countries quickly swept in and took control of large swaths of territory. They also took territory in Syria after the Arab Spring put Assad on his back foot, unable to maintain power in the east.
power vacuums are a myth
Why are they a myth?
they are a story that people tell to explain the world. but they are not a phenomenon that can be empirically tested.
How did gangs take control of Haiti? How did warlords take control of Somalia? I guess those governments just decided to dissolve and hand over their monopolies on violence to other groups.
I don’t know the particular histories you’re talking about, but I bet it involves private property, prisons, and policing. none of that is anarchy.
Ask yourself how you will enforce it and suddenly you’re no longer talking about anarchy.
this is a no true Scotsman.
No we’re talking about definitions. You’re advocating for anarchy being a viable state for humankind, I’m saying practically you can’t enforce or defend its existence without turning it in to something that it is not by definition. It is practically impossible to defend a state of anarchy as it will and always has been overpowered by a more organized, hierarchical force.
it will and always has been overpowered by a more organized, hierarchical force.
you can’t prove this
The point stands though.
no, it doesn’t
Oh okay, thanks for that enlightening response.
any time.
Anarchy is the worst a society can devolve into.
And people who believe that certain anarchy “models” can work, know nothing about the psychology of larger groups.
When large groups of people need to live together there needs to be structure and rules that must be respected, and the rules need to be upheld by a governing body.
The best way we have to form that governing body is democracy.When large groups of people need to live together there needs to be structure and rules that must be respected, and the rules need to be upheld by a governing body.
you can’t prove this.
As I stated, people defending anarchy doesn’t understand the psychology of larger groups.
I can only say that EVERY successful society has a central government. If Anarchy could work as well, how come there are no successful anarchy societies?
Not as in so few, but NONE! If it should work so well, why has no country ever even tried? When a country is thrown into anarchy because the government is removed, and nothing replaces it. It always turns out the same. Extreme violence, theft and hunger.
That’s what is shown to happen when Anarchy reigns.If Anarchy could work as well, how come there are no successful anarchy societies.
there are
Bullshit.
exarcheia, the Paris commune, and the swamp maroons come right to mind, as well as anabaptists
This is what I get when I search “Exarcheia paris”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exarcheia
In December 2008, the murder of 15-year-old Alexandros Grigoropoulos by a policeman in Exarcheia caused rioting throughout Greece.
I have no idea what you are trying to argue here, but as far as I can tell Exarcheia is neither self governing or has anarchy and it isn’t in Paris, but in Greece???
You are extremely sloppy at trying to arguing your point.
if you don’t know exarcheia and the Paris commune are separate societies, you’re not qualified to discuss the practicality of if anarchism
can only say that EVERY successful society has a central government.
you don’t define success.
I absolutely do, as in NOT being dominated by Extreme violence, theft and hunger.
you’re describing capitalism
So how do you imagine Anarchy could work without capitalism. Even communist countries have a capitalist element.
communism is stateless. whatever you’re talking about isn’t communist. anarchy works through mutual aid.
