More of a pamphlet than a zine, but it seems the answer is: No, I’m not.
Everyone believes they are capable of behaving
reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are.
Capable, sure, I think I’m capable of behaving reasonably. But that’s a long way from being inclined to behave reasonably. And if I of all people can’t consistently behave reasonably, how can I expect it from the rest of you dumbfucks? Sure, I can hope that they will function at the height of reason at least half the time, but can I expect that? No I cannot.
And that’s leaving out goal mismatches entirely, which make it so a perfectly reasonable person could use their reason to pursue a goal detrimental to my own.
Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free—and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that
entails.
Another big jump. Without specific ethical training, most people do not consider the effects of their actions on others, especially among equals. Having power over someone at leasts pings the “I am responsible for this person” thought process, and being under someone else’s power, as any abuse victim can tell you, makes one hyperaware of the other’s moods and triggers. Obviously both of those are bad situations, and I agree with the anarchists about dismantling them. But expecting people to treat equals with consideration is just way too facile.
got rid of all the useless or destructive
occupations like… lawyers
I fail to see how an anarchist, stateless society could exist without lawyers. In world where everything is decided by consent and consensus, a professional advocate will be more necessary, not less.
Aw, shoot, I gotta go to work. I’ll come back and do the rest later. I also want to note that I’m not quoting any of the parts I agree with, because there’s so many of them. I agree with the anarchist critique of postmodern society, just not the proposed solutions.
Thanks for sharing, OP. Is this yours or did you find it?
This is not mine, and I do not consider myself to be particularly knowledgeable on this topic. Though my understanding is that it’s a theory of no rulers/hierarchy with an emphasis on direct democracy rather than something resembling Hobbes’s State of Nature. I’ll do my best to add to the discussion!
And if I of all people can’t consistently behave reasonably, how can I expect it from the rest of you dumbfucks
If you don’t expect others to behave reasonably, then that’s a good argument for getting rid of hierarchies where other people hold power over you. If power corrupts is a statement you agree with, then we shouldn’t be rewarding those who make a career out of seeking power. The difference is without structures of hierarchy, the damage of unreasonable people will never reach that which could be caused by a political or corporate leader with power over thousands or even millions.
Without specific ethical training, most people do not consider the effects of their actions on others, especially among equals
I didn’t read this the same way - I think the point is that people can organise to meet their needs between each other directly. I don’t believe the claim was that without hierarchy, people will magically be flawless and university good to each other. As a side note, I do believe that people are generally better to each other when their needs are met, which is a current issue with the political structures and concentration of wealth we have today.
I’m curious to hear more informed discussion about the fair points you brought up, and a quick search returned https://lemmy.ml/c/anarchism. Feel free to ask those questions there! In particular, I don’t know much about the lawyer part you mentioned.
More of a pamphlet than a zine, but it seems the answer is: No, I’m not.
Capable, sure, I think I’m capable of behaving reasonably. But that’s a long way from being inclined to behave reasonably. And if I of all people can’t consistently behave reasonably, how can I expect it from the rest of you dumbfucks? Sure, I can hope that they will function at the height of reason at least half the time, but can I expect that? No I cannot.
And that’s leaving out goal mismatches entirely, which make it so a perfectly reasonable person could use their reason to pursue a goal detrimental to my own.
Another big jump. Without specific ethical training, most people do not consider the effects of their actions on others, especially among equals. Having power over someone at leasts pings the “I am responsible for this person” thought process, and being under someone else’s power, as any abuse victim can tell you, makes one hyperaware of the other’s moods and triggers. Obviously both of those are bad situations, and I agree with the anarchists about dismantling them. But expecting people to treat equals with consideration is just way too facile.
I fail to see how an anarchist, stateless society could exist without lawyers. In world where everything is decided by consent and consensus, a professional advocate will be more necessary, not less.
Aw, shoot, I gotta go to work. I’ll come back and do the rest later. I also want to note that I’m not quoting any of the parts I agree with, because there’s so many of them. I agree with the anarchist critique of postmodern society, just not the proposed solutions.
Thanks for sharing, OP. Is this yours or did you find it?
No real critiques from the rest of the pamphlet, thanks again to OP for sharing.
This is not mine, and I do not consider myself to be particularly knowledgeable on this topic. Though my understanding is that it’s a theory of no rulers/hierarchy with an emphasis on direct democracy rather than something resembling Hobbes’s State of Nature. I’ll do my best to add to the discussion!
If you don’t expect others to behave reasonably, then that’s a good argument for getting rid of hierarchies where other people hold power over you. If power corrupts is a statement you agree with, then we shouldn’t be rewarding those who make a career out of seeking power. The difference is without structures of hierarchy, the damage of unreasonable people will never reach that which could be caused by a political or corporate leader with power over thousands or even millions.
I didn’t read this the same way - I think the point is that people can organise to meet their needs between each other directly. I don’t believe the claim was that without hierarchy, people will magically be flawless and university good to each other. As a side note, I do believe that people are generally better to each other when their needs are met, which is a current issue with the political structures and concentration of wealth we have today.
I’m curious to hear more informed discussion about the fair points you brought up, and a quick search returned https://lemmy.ml/c/anarchism. Feel free to ask those questions there! In particular, I don’t know much about the lawyer part you mentioned.