Portland Anarchist Road Care Fixes Potholes Anonymously (2017)(citylab.com)
citylab.com
Portland Anarchist Road Care Fixes Potholes Anonymously (2017)
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/03/portland-anarchists-want-to-fix-your-streets-potholes/519588/
203 comments
>Are they suggesting that the city can be held liable when a pothole they _haven't_ fixed jacks up my car or its tires? I've not really heard of that working in practice.
I don't know about Portland or Oregon, since it's a state/city level issue I assume laws vary all over the USA there. However, in my state that is absolutely the case on state roads, not "liable" so much as "you can be reimbursed for documented damages up to some limit", and the process is a quite straightforward one that I've personally taken advantage of. A few years back I hit a fresh major pothole on a state highway (50 mph speed limit) and it destroyed tires on the passenger side, though at least I avoided serious damage to my shocks. I documented the tow, repair, and tire replacement cost, downloaded the state reimbursement form, and sent it all in. 3 weeks later the state sent me back a check for the $500-someodd it cost no questions asked.
I suspect a lot of people don't know about such laws but from a brief glance they do seem reasonably widespread around the country, so it's always worth checking. Maybe another one of those many things that can work quite well and easily in your favor if you know about it, but that most people don't even know to take advantage of in the first place. Certainly didn't come up in driver's ed, I only learned about it while talking shop with other people volunteering to help a campaign for state office.
I don't know about Portland or Oregon, since it's a state/city level issue I assume laws vary all over the USA there. However, in my state that is absolutely the case on state roads, not "liable" so much as "you can be reimbursed for documented damages up to some limit", and the process is a quite straightforward one that I've personally taken advantage of. A few years back I hit a fresh major pothole on a state highway (50 mph speed limit) and it destroyed tires on the passenger side, though at least I avoided serious damage to my shocks. I documented the tow, repair, and tire replacement cost, downloaded the state reimbursement form, and sent it all in. 3 weeks later the state sent me back a check for the $500-someodd it cost no questions asked.
I suspect a lot of people don't know about such laws but from a brief glance they do seem reasonably widespread around the country, so it's always worth checking. Maybe another one of those many things that can work quite well and easily in your favor if you know about it, but that most people don't even know to take advantage of in the first place. Certainly didn't come up in driver's ed, I only learned about it while talking shop with other people volunteering to help a campaign for state office.
An amusing thought: If a lot more people would start submitting claims though such laws, the cities/states would start getting more proactive in fixing damage to the roads, so as to limit the amount of legit claims they had to pay.
Or have the law changed.
It would be out of character for the government to suddenly refuse an opportunity to grow
This may also apply to construction areas. My relative hit a temporary metal plate (after construction hours) commuting home from work and it destroyed a tire and dented a rim. Filed a claim through the local municipality which eventually got forwarded to the contracted construction company which fully reimbursed repair costs.
It's simply "you touch it, you (might) own it". The same principle applies, for example, to first aid, which is why "Good Samaritan" laws exist shielding you from liability. I generally sympathise with your point of view, because I really don't know how you can actually make a pothole worse by attempting to fix it. But if someone can make such a case ("they fixed it with road-coloured cardboard paper and I didn't see the hole below"), then yeah, they are liable.
The city is just giving advice in this case. If someone where to harmed by one of these fixed potholes, the lawsuit would be between that person and these "pothole vigilantes".
The city is just giving advice in this case. If someone where to harmed by one of these fixed potholes, the lawsuit would be between that person and these "pothole vigilantes".
> I really don't know how you can actually make a pothole worse by attempting to fix it.
My first thought would be using substandard or incorrect materials. Say, using concrete in an asphalt surface. You quasi cover this with your cardboard part of the comment. Perhaps an incorrect mix of aggregate to asphalt might have different thermal properties. If the pothole expanded more/faster than the surrounding material, it might make it a lot worse. Also, if your materials are not safe to drive on while setting (like my example, filling a hole with concrete). You'd also be endangering yourself and others while attempting such work as you'll be unsuitably marked and lanes won't be properly barricaded for your work.
My first thought would be using substandard or incorrect materials. Say, using concrete in an asphalt surface. You quasi cover this with your cardboard part of the comment. Perhaps an incorrect mix of aggregate to asphalt might have different thermal properties. If the pothole expanded more/faster than the surrounding material, it might make it a lot worse. Also, if your materials are not safe to drive on while setting (like my example, filling a hole with concrete). You'd also be endangering yourself and others while attempting such work as you'll be unsuitably marked and lanes won't be properly barricaded for your work.
"I really don't know how you can actually make a pothole worse by attempting to fix it"
You have clearly never lived in the town where I grew up :)
You have clearly never lived in the town where I grew up :)
> "you touch it, you (might) own it"
Perhaps compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855.
Perhaps compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855.
This was always the problem I had with the idea of having liability for cleaning the ice off the sidewalk in front of your house. The province/city/state isn't responsible if your car crashes because they didn't salt the road/bridge in time (or at all), so why is there a double standard?
It's good to be the king.
(that's literally where the double standard comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity )
(that's literally where the double standard comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity )
In the UK it’s relatively easy to claim compensation [1] and, as far as I’ve heard, this is usually paid out if the road damage had been reported previously.
[1]: https://www.gov.uk/claim-for-damage-to-your-vehicle
[1]: https://www.gov.uk/claim-for-damage-to-your-vehicle
I was thinking the same thing. What's more dangerous, a pothole, or one that a bunch of amateurs temporarily patched? I say the pothole is far more dangerous.
Reminds me of the "Guerrilla Public Service" vigilante[1][2] from 2001, he added an I-5 sign notification where people commonly missed the exit.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANFaIeiJ40Q
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clgl63CWOkM
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANFaIeiJ40Q
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clgl63CWOkM
I love that story so much.
We all have those "little" things that bug us, that we just wish we could throw our hands up and fix but naturally never do. The most we'll do is send a comment/email that will never get action-ed.
We all have those "little" things that bug us, that we just wish we could throw our hands up and fix but naturally never do. The most we'll do is send a comment/email that will never get action-ed.
“It’s not safe or legal for people to fill potholes on streets that are maintained by the city,” says Rivera. “They run the risk of being injured in a traffic crash.... They also run the risk of being held personally liable if someone were to be injured by the pothole they attempted to fix.”
Not legal? Everything starts being illegal when it's an embarrassment for the governement. As in capitalism's paralyzie? Let these guys decide if they want to run the risk to be injured.
Not legal? Everything starts being illegal when it's an embarrassment for the governement. As in capitalism's paralyzie? Let these guys decide if they want to run the risk to be injured.
I put this comment in the Tesla thread, but it applies here as well. Last summer saw a lot of really bad forest fires that had to be fought. The costs of fighting those fires had to come from the state in most cases, and many budgets suffered as a result (a situation made worse by the broad denials of federal assistance to states). In our case (Montana) the budget that suffered the most was road maintenance.
Our roads received the minimum possible care they could receive this winter; the state just couldn’t afford more.
Our roads received the minimum possible care they could receive this winter; the state just couldn’t afford more.
And, in the case of the Lolo Peak fire, my parents are one of two households that are footing the cost of the firefighters major fuck-up of setting the back-burn that nearly took out an entire neighborhood.
My parents lost nearly everything except 2 vehicles and the pets. The fire started on federal land, and federal officials set the fire that burned down my parents' house.
No compensation to them, yet, except from their insurance.
I know back-burns are not precise, but given that the fed took preventative measures sure as bulldozing a multimile fire line and laying pipe to power sprinklers, then they set the fire and didn't turn the sprinklers on, feels like arson to me. Also, that they started it at one of the worst times of the day. Everyone in Montana knows that winds pick up in the afternoon. When did they start the back-burn? Roughly 1-2pm local, depending on conditions. That's usually about the cutoff for regional slash burns. By cutoff, I don't mean start, I mean, they have to be stopped by then.
Coupled with reports from neighbors, that refused to evacuate, that fire fighters stood by and simply watched while 2 houses & a neighborhood water system burned to the ground.
Am I pissed? Of course. I think there was a huge failure of management in this fire. Will my parents every be properly be compensated? I doubt it. They, and the rest of my family, have lost a lot due to federal mismanagement.
My parents' house was not lost due to a wild fire. It was lost due to federal action to combat a wild fire, and they fucked it up.
My parents lost nearly everything except 2 vehicles and the pets. The fire started on federal land, and federal officials set the fire that burned down my parents' house.
No compensation to them, yet, except from their insurance.
I know back-burns are not precise, but given that the fed took preventative measures sure as bulldozing a multimile fire line and laying pipe to power sprinklers, then they set the fire and didn't turn the sprinklers on, feels like arson to me. Also, that they started it at one of the worst times of the day. Everyone in Montana knows that winds pick up in the afternoon. When did they start the back-burn? Roughly 1-2pm local, depending on conditions. That's usually about the cutoff for regional slash burns. By cutoff, I don't mean start, I mean, they have to be stopped by then.
Coupled with reports from neighbors, that refused to evacuate, that fire fighters stood by and simply watched while 2 houses & a neighborhood water system burned to the ground.
Am I pissed? Of course. I think there was a huge failure of management in this fire. Will my parents every be properly be compensated? I doubt it. They, and the rest of my family, have lost a lot due to federal mismanagement.
My parents' house was not lost due to a wild fire. It was lost due to federal action to combat a wild fire, and they fucked it up.
> “We don’t think the city should exist; we are only limited by our capacity and our imaginations,” says PARC.
Cities are the most efficient way we've discovered to live as humans. They're less wasteful, they consolidate resources, etc.
> “Don’t get us wrong, we believe that many of these services are crucial for society, like healthcare, education, and maintained roadways, but we believe that the way to achieve access for all is by deconstructing the state and capitalism, as well as other coercive hierarchies that exist in our society. It is this driving philosophy that motivates our actions, not only to fix the potholes, but to take power back from the state, into the hands of the people.”
Centralization and urban living were invented thousands of years ago and has made these services possible and more efficient over time.
Cities are the most efficient way we've discovered to live as humans. They're less wasteful, they consolidate resources, etc.
> “Don’t get us wrong, we believe that many of these services are crucial for society, like healthcare, education, and maintained roadways, but we believe that the way to achieve access for all is by deconstructing the state and capitalism, as well as other coercive hierarchies that exist in our society. It is this driving philosophy that motivates our actions, not only to fix the potholes, but to take power back from the state, into the hands of the people.”
Centralization and urban living were invented thousands of years ago and has made these services possible and more efficient over time.
In context, they clearly are referring to the municipal government when they say the city shouldn't exist, not to the physical collection of people and infrastructure.
All the services they say they want are provided by the municipal government. How are they going to provide all the services of the government without the government?
That is always the question asked. They would argue that things could be voluntarily self organized, instead of structured in coercive heirarchies.
In other words, they would say that people who are capable of being doctors should provide medical care, and organize themselves in a way to make sure that care gets provided sensibly. When potholes need fixing the community should meet and figure out how to get it done. They believe we can do all of these things with out needing an organized state that gets to dictate anything, money to incentivize, or police as coercive enforcement.
I'm sure I'm butchering it a bit. It might not be quite that simple, but it's along those lines.
And yes, it's idealistic as hell. That said, I know a lot of anarchist activists and damn, do those guys know how to get shit done.
In other words, they would say that people who are capable of being doctors should provide medical care, and organize themselves in a way to make sure that care gets provided sensibly. When potholes need fixing the community should meet and figure out how to get it done. They believe we can do all of these things with out needing an organized state that gets to dictate anything, money to incentivize, or police as coercive enforcement.
I'm sure I'm butchering it a bit. It might not be quite that simple, but it's along those lines.
And yes, it's idealistic as hell. That said, I know a lot of anarchist activists and damn, do those guys know how to get shit done.
> And yes, it's idealistic as hell.
Not really. In countless rural societies, throughout the world and through history, it's been commonplace for people to help each other with building their homes, making dirt roads and small bridges, making food and many other tasks - without charging each other for money or bartering.
Essentially a small village can work much like a very large family and people would use money almost only when interacting with strangers in a different village.
Not really. In countless rural societies, throughout the world and through history, it's been commonplace for people to help each other with building their homes, making dirt roads and small bridges, making food and many other tasks - without charging each other for money or bartering.
Essentially a small village can work much like a very large family and people would use money almost only when interacting with strangers in a different village.
Sure, there are a lot of social processes that work in smallish communes where people mostly know each other. But that doesn't scale - the relationships break down above the Dunbar limit and become substantially different as you don't even know most of the people. The processes and motivation that work in a 50 people community will not work the same way in a 5000 people community; in the first case people might behave as if they're all a big family with shared interests, in the latter case they will not.
The fact that X works in a small village should not be considered as evidence that X would plausibly work in a mid-sized town. For homo sapiens and groups of them, scale matters a lot.
The fact that X works in a small village should not be considered as evidence that X would plausibly work in a mid-sized town. For homo sapiens and groups of them, scale matters a lot.
I'm not sure it's that great in a group of fifty, you would have real problems if you stand out in some way or aren't particularly useful.
That can work for small communities, but you wouldn't ever be able to accomplish large scale tasks with that limited scale of organization. And not just big buildings and bridges (which one could argue are unnecessary), but projects like research in medicine and agriculture which benefit everyone, but require a large centralization of resources, leadership, and lots of time to create. That doesn't seem like something that could emerge from a anarchist society.
> you wouldn't ever be able to accomplish large scale tasks
I never said that model is meant to be applied at large scale.
> projects like research in medicine
You could have chosen an example like building a dam. In many countries academia works in a highly decentralized fashion and is less money-driven than other fields. Also see FLOSS.
> doesn't seem like something that could emerge from a anarchist society
Not from a handful of individuals. However anarchism does not reject large and complex organizations (on the contrary):
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/Why_do_anarchist...
I never said that model is meant to be applied at large scale.
> projects like research in medicine
You could have chosen an example like building a dam. In many countries academia works in a highly decentralized fashion and is less money-driven than other fields. Also see FLOSS.
> doesn't seem like something that could emerge from a anarchist society
Not from a handful of individuals. However anarchism does not reject large and complex organizations (on the contrary):
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/Why_do_anarchist...
> ... and bridges (which one could argue are unnecessary)
I'm pretty sure you're referring to the Bridge to Nowhere [1] here (~$400M), but one could argue for a number of public works projects that are unnecessary, stupid, or the cause of recurring large expenditures.
Chicago, built on a swamp, still constantly has flooding issues. The Deep Tunnel project [2] is currently at > $4B, and still can't handle a relatively common spring storm without dumping sewage into either Lake Michigan or the Illinois-Michigan Sanitation Canal. Not to mention the other regional estuaries that get polluted by overflows such as the Des Plaines River or the Salt Creek (which just happens to run by the Chicago area's premier zoo: Brookfield).
Also, Washington DC, also built on a swamp (literal, not the figurative "drain the swamp"). Not sure what measures the city takes to prevent/handle flooding. Also potential hurricane target.
New Orleans, built below sea level...right next to the sea, and also a prime target for hurricanes, the worst in recent memory being Katrina. Response to that? Rebuild. Should have been relocate. First search from Google I found says costs from the recovery on that were ~$108B [3] (I don't know the accuracy of this - first time I've ever visited the site). I don't know how much the Army Corps of Engineers has spent rebuilding the dikes & levies that failed after Katrina, but I'd put money down that it is far beyond the $400M spent on the "Bridge to Nowhere".
Point is, the Federal government is there to help all citizens, those in small & large communities/cities alike. Infrastructure projects cost money, period. They're actually cheaper in rural areas due to cheaper local labor, sometimes material, and usually (but not always) less corruption and cronyism (road repairs around Chicago are generally of very poor quality, do not last long and are poorly planned - e.g. in Cook County, a road will often be repaired one week, and then promptly torn up the next to replace a sewer/water/gas main).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge [2] http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/367.html [3] https://www.thebalance.com/hurricane-katrina-facts-damage-an...
I'm pretty sure you're referring to the Bridge to Nowhere [1] here (~$400M), but one could argue for a number of public works projects that are unnecessary, stupid, or the cause of recurring large expenditures.
Chicago, built on a swamp, still constantly has flooding issues. The Deep Tunnel project [2] is currently at > $4B, and still can't handle a relatively common spring storm without dumping sewage into either Lake Michigan or the Illinois-Michigan Sanitation Canal. Not to mention the other regional estuaries that get polluted by overflows such as the Des Plaines River or the Salt Creek (which just happens to run by the Chicago area's premier zoo: Brookfield).
Also, Washington DC, also built on a swamp (literal, not the figurative "drain the swamp"). Not sure what measures the city takes to prevent/handle flooding. Also potential hurricane target.
New Orleans, built below sea level...right next to the sea, and also a prime target for hurricanes, the worst in recent memory being Katrina. Response to that? Rebuild. Should have been relocate. First search from Google I found says costs from the recovery on that were ~$108B [3] (I don't know the accuracy of this - first time I've ever visited the site). I don't know how much the Army Corps of Engineers has spent rebuilding the dikes & levies that failed after Katrina, but I'd put money down that it is far beyond the $400M spent on the "Bridge to Nowhere".
Point is, the Federal government is there to help all citizens, those in small & large communities/cities alike. Infrastructure projects cost money, period. They're actually cheaper in rural areas due to cheaper local labor, sometimes material, and usually (but not always) less corruption and cronyism (road repairs around Chicago are generally of very poor quality, do not last long and are poorly planned - e.g. in Cook County, a road will often be repaired one week, and then promptly torn up the next to replace a sewer/water/gas main).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge [2] http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/367.html [3] https://www.thebalance.com/hurricane-katrina-facts-damage-an...
The rub is that your need leaders in the sense of initiating things, but that you're without an organized class of people who are paid to lead.
You actually don't need leaders. I've been part of plenty of leaderless flat heirarchies that self organized pretty damned well. People just stepped up to do things that needed doing. The problem isn't that people can't function with out leaders. The issue is more that, those sorts of flat heirarchies don't tend to scale well.
But that doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't, if we put some effort and education into training people how to operate in them better. I'm less skeptical of the idea that we could operate in self organized non-heirarchies than I am of the idea that would could do away with the money and all formal organizations.
The idea that we could do everything by informal agreement just seems really unstable to me. Like you'd never quite know what the rules were and like they could change at any moment.
But that doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't, if we put some effort and education into training people how to operate in them better. I'm less skeptical of the idea that we could operate in self organized non-heirarchies than I am of the idea that would could do away with the money and all formal organizations.
The idea that we could do everything by informal agreement just seems really unstable to me. Like you'd never quite know what the rules were and like they could change at any moment.
> When potholes need fixing the community should meet and figure out how to get it done.
OK.
> They believe we can do all of these things with out needing an organized state
Well, see, we met and decided that that's how we're going to get things done. It happens at the time a town decides to incorporate. How does it decide to do that? Usually by a referendum passing among the town's voters.
OK.
> They believe we can do all of these things with out needing an organized state
Well, see, we met and decided that that's how we're going to get things done. It happens at the time a town decides to incorporate. How does it decide to do that? Usually by a referendum passing among the town's voters.
They are provided by the government now, but do they have to be? An anarchist would say "no".
Much as been written about the organization of anti-capitalist anarchist societies. One work on that is An Anarchist FAQ[1], but beware that like any other political group - an especially on the left - there will certainly be other anarchists decrying that text as nonsense and false anarchism and such.
[1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-ed...
Much as been written about the organization of anti-capitalist anarchist societies. One work on that is An Anarchist FAQ[1], but beware that like any other political group - an especially on the left - there will certainly be other anarchists decrying that text as nonsense and false anarchism and such.
[1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-ed...
From the article:
“There can be no ethical services provided by the government because they are facilitated through the power of the gun,” writes PARC, presumably while flipping the bird like in the top photo. “Don’t get us wrong, we believe that many of these services are crucial for society, like healthcare, education, and maintained roadways, but we believe that the way to achieve access for all is by deconstructing the state and capitalism, as well as other coercive hierarchies that exist in our society. It is this driving philosophy that motivates our actions, not only to fix the potholes, but to take power back from the state, into the hands of the people.”
“There can be no ethical services provided by the government because they are facilitated through the power of the gun,” writes PARC, presumably while flipping the bird like in the top photo. “Don’t get us wrong, we believe that many of these services are crucial for society, like healthcare, education, and maintained roadways, but we believe that the way to achieve access for all is by deconstructing the state and capitalism, as well as other coercive hierarchies that exist in our society. It is this driving philosophy that motivates our actions, not only to fix the potholes, but to take power back from the state, into the hands of the people.”
> facilitated through the power of the gun
Fascinating, seeing as many people's experience of self-identified 'anarchism' is through the power of the fist.
Fascinating, seeing as many people's experience of self-identified 'anarchism' is through the power of the fist.
Isn't using your fists just self-defense when someone is pointing a gun at you?
Sure, but in most cases anarchism is 'bash the fash' with 'fascist' being defined as 'anyone we don't like' including unarmed people. Fists or makeshift weapons are typically used as they can't be traced.
It's odd: anarchists openly justify violence in defense from 'fascism', whereas fascism is correctly defined as obtaining and maintaining power through violence, without seeing the irony.
It's odd: anarchists openly justify violence in defense from 'fascism', whereas fascism is correctly defined as obtaining and maintaining power through violence, without seeing the irony.
Are you sure it's "most cases", or just the ones you hear about in the news? How many do you know personally? Beware of the availability bias.
As an anecdote, I live near a left-wing anarchist group called the Center of Libertarian Culture, and I can assure you they're all pacific people.
It's odd: anarchists openly justify violence in defense from 'fascism', whereas fascism is correctly defined as obtaining and maintaining power through violence, without seeing the irony.
There's no irony; anarchists don't want to obtain and maintain power, just to prevent others from doing so.
As an anecdote, I live near a left-wing anarchist group called the Center of Libertarian Culture, and I can assure you they're all pacific people.
It's odd: anarchists openly justify violence in defense from 'fascism', whereas fascism is correctly defined as obtaining and maintaining power through violence, without seeing the irony.
There's no irony; anarchists don't want to obtain and maintain power, just to prevent others from doing so.
I know a couple, from tech, who are anarchists: I'm friends with one of them despite them being very damaged people. Both are openly violent towards anyone right of Bernie Sanders and one other told me, with a serious face, they wanted to stab everyone in the pool at a tech conference I attended.
By beating the shit out of people you're obtaining power for yourself. Modern anarchism is fascism, masking itself as the opposite.
By beating the shit out of people you're obtaining power for yourself. Modern anarchism is fascism, masking itself as the opposite.
Not all people calling themselves anarchists (or Christians, or Muslims, or intellectuals, or X for any value of X) are actually X.
Sure, "no true Scotsman", but still; what you're describing is indeed fascism, it has nothing to do with any principles of anarchism I'm aware of.
Sure, "no true Scotsman", but still; what you're describing is indeed fascism, it has nothing to do with any principles of anarchism I'm aware of.
Yes, I know. Hence explicitly mentioning 'self described anarchists' in the thread. The people in the article are also self described anarchists. You're arguing very successfully against a straw man.
Why do you think that couple is representative of the whole (or even most) anarchists today?
Because every anarchist I've known personally, met online, or read about shares their same ideals of moral superiority through violence.
Saying 'violent thugs don't represent the original priciples of anarchism' is missing the point, in the same way that people who say 'real communism hasn't been tried' and ignore the 100M dead people.
Saying 'violent thugs don't represent the original priciples of anarchism' is missing the point, in the same way that people who say 'real communism hasn't been tried' and ignore the 100M dead people.
All of the anarchists I've ever known have been mild mannered geeks and academics.
this is a gross misrepresentation of quite a well defined school of thought.
Not discussing the school of thought, just self defined anarchists, as mentioned in the post.
I don't think it's a misrepresentation at all, especially if you consider the anti-Fa movement. anti-Fa is ironically using very fascist tactics in their protest of fascism.
That's what I was thinking when I said "beware of the news bias". Regardless of what one thinks of specific actions of the Antifa movement, it's not necessarily true that those represent even Antifa members as a whole, and it's completely specious to assume they represent anarchists as a whole. Antifa is not even an anarchist-only movement.
All the anarchists I’ve met think citizens will spontaneously combust^W form committees, chosen by their peers using the Australian method, and those committees will cause work to happen by raising funds from interested peers. Like Mad Max, but with smiles.
Committees in anarchism are more like the PTA, band boosters, rotary club, or your HOA--everything that has no statutory authority, and no power to tax. They form whenever someone thinks it might be even worse to not have one, everyone hates attending the meetings, and they are almost entirely dependent on one to five people devoting too much of their own energy to holding it all together. There might be a contract in place, and it might mandate that dues be paid.
In lieu of mandatory dues, they will always be strapped for cash and either begging for donations or coming up with annoying fundraiser ideas. They might fork, and one or both parts of the fork will fail, because some of the critical support went to the other part of the fork.
And some of them will actually be more like organized crime families or street gangs than the PTA.
In other words, anarchy is happening right now, and you can see how it works right now. A bunch of crazies devoted to renegade pothole repair is a perfect example. They come together because of potholes. They fix potholes. People pay attention to them as long as they care about potholes. When the pothole problem is fixed, everyone forgets they ever existed, then stop paying attention and giving money. They either drift away to find something else to do, or become the lonely, ignored crusaders against potholes that people remember hearing about that one time, but had no idea they were still around and still fixing potholes.
It doesn't scale, though. Anarchy can only exist at the local level because governments tackle many of the big problems and force people to pay for the solutions with taxes. Imagine if your city government operated like the mafia (Chicago!), or if your state government operated like a giant PTA meeting. It might get as far as agreeing to set a budget of $500 for the spring graduation party before removing someone from the gallery for shouting about invading foreign armies, and would still be answering stupid questions about the dress code for service dogs when the soldiers started dragging everyone out.
Mr. Humungus (a reasonable feller) is president of the Juicetakers Committee, Toecutter vice president, Feral Kid as secretary, Gyropilot as treasurer, and someone that looks exactly like your Mom covered in warpaint as the member-at-large. The president has advanced a proposal that you just walk away and give us your juice. We took a vote, and it passed unanimously. We are also selling cookie dough as part of our fall fundraiser. So give us the juice, and please buy some cookies on your way out into the desert.
I'd prefer it if they were shooting guns at me.
In lieu of mandatory dues, they will always be strapped for cash and either begging for donations or coming up with annoying fundraiser ideas. They might fork, and one or both parts of the fork will fail, because some of the critical support went to the other part of the fork.
And some of them will actually be more like organized crime families or street gangs than the PTA.
In other words, anarchy is happening right now, and you can see how it works right now. A bunch of crazies devoted to renegade pothole repair is a perfect example. They come together because of potholes. They fix potholes. People pay attention to them as long as they care about potholes. When the pothole problem is fixed, everyone forgets they ever existed, then stop paying attention and giving money. They either drift away to find something else to do, or become the lonely, ignored crusaders against potholes that people remember hearing about that one time, but had no idea they were still around and still fixing potholes.
It doesn't scale, though. Anarchy can only exist at the local level because governments tackle many of the big problems and force people to pay for the solutions with taxes. Imagine if your city government operated like the mafia (Chicago!), or if your state government operated like a giant PTA meeting. It might get as far as agreeing to set a budget of $500 for the spring graduation party before removing someone from the gallery for shouting about invading foreign armies, and would still be answering stupid questions about the dress code for service dogs when the soldiers started dragging everyone out.
Mr. Humungus (a reasonable feller) is president of the Juicetakers Committee, Toecutter vice president, Feral Kid as secretary, Gyropilot as treasurer, and someone that looks exactly like your Mom covered in warpaint as the member-at-large. The president has advanced a proposal that you just walk away and give us your juice. We took a vote, and it passed unanimously. We are also selling cookie dough as part of our fall fundraiser. So give us the juice, and please buy some cookies on your way out into the desert.
I'd prefer it if they were shooting guns at me.
They are currently providing one of the services that the municipal government is expected to provide. Presumably, they would like to expand that and provide the rest using the same volunteer model.
Yeah, it absolutely stuns me these people who dream up of a better world have apparently zero historical insight into how human societies have organized themselves.
"We are going to offer all the services the state offers now but only better" is the silliest argument ever. You run into the exactly same resource and distribution problems as the government has, and you are going to start instituting the same sort of structures sooner or later.
Hierarchical systems are not enforced on people by malificient power hungry lords. Humans self organize into hierarchical system. If you are planning this "total-decentralization" you better have a plan on how to negate this natural "follow-the-leader" instinct most people have.
The second is the historical example. The only time anarchists come to power is in time of great trouble. Mainly because the dominant political force has fallen, and everything is in chaos. Another political force has risen sooner or later, only to install hierarchical power structures. With great misery to most involved.
Doing anonymous good deeds is one thing.
Speaking of a revolution is another.
"We are going to offer all the services the state offers now but only better" is the silliest argument ever. You run into the exactly same resource and distribution problems as the government has, and you are going to start instituting the same sort of structures sooner or later.
Hierarchical systems are not enforced on people by malificient power hungry lords. Humans self organize into hierarchical system. If you are planning this "total-decentralization" you better have a plan on how to negate this natural "follow-the-leader" instinct most people have.
The second is the historical example. The only time anarchists come to power is in time of great trouble. Mainly because the dominant political force has fallen, and everything is in chaos. Another political force has risen sooner or later, only to install hierarchical power structures. With great misery to most involved.
Doing anonymous good deeds is one thing.
Speaking of a revolution is another.
Yeah. I find it weird that when people dream up the "best" social structure, it's often explained by a simple overarching philosophy. How convenient would it be that the entire complexity of human society can be ideally governed by a small set of principles?
It's always "only capitalism" or "only communism" or "no money" or "no government" or etc etc.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the optimal solution isn't based purely on some philosophical idea about how things 'should' be (whatever 'should' even means!), but instead would be a pragmatic, adaptive solution based on what actually happens and works on a case-by-case basis.
It would be a patchy, ugly system, compared to the perfect elegant algorithm people want. And indeed that's kind of what we have. We just gotta keep patching and amending. There are a lot of existing problems, but we have the framework for fixing them, and no doubt it is a difficult process. But to insist that the solution is to start over is naive and dismissive of the generations of sacrifice made to get to this point.
It's frustrating when people argue that all evil is because of capitalism, or that capitalism is purely good. Can't we just acknowledge that there are good and bad aspects of all systems, and work to boost the good parts and improve or attenuate the bad parts? And work in the good parts of other "competing" systems too? Yes, things don't have to be 100% pure capitalism or not. Hybrid solutions exist! That's basically what is happening, I just wish people would stop arguing by simplifying everything into some catchy moral gimmick.
It's always "only capitalism" or "only communism" or "no money" or "no government" or etc etc.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the optimal solution isn't based purely on some philosophical idea about how things 'should' be (whatever 'should' even means!), but instead would be a pragmatic, adaptive solution based on what actually happens and works on a case-by-case basis.
It would be a patchy, ugly system, compared to the perfect elegant algorithm people want. And indeed that's kind of what we have. We just gotta keep patching and amending. There are a lot of existing problems, but we have the framework for fixing them, and no doubt it is a difficult process. But to insist that the solution is to start over is naive and dismissive of the generations of sacrifice made to get to this point.
It's frustrating when people argue that all evil is because of capitalism, or that capitalism is purely good. Can't we just acknowledge that there are good and bad aspects of all systems, and work to boost the good parts and improve or attenuate the bad parts? And work in the good parts of other "competing" systems too? Yes, things don't have to be 100% pure capitalism or not. Hybrid solutions exist! That's basically what is happening, I just wish people would stop arguing by simplifying everything into some catchy moral gimmick.
> I just wish people would stop arguing by simplifying everything into some catchy moral gimmick.
Things work well enough that we can afford the luxury of chasing a feeling of moral superiority. Under worse conditions, most people don't have time for that.
Things work well enough that we can afford the luxury of chasing a feeling of moral superiority. Under worse conditions, most people don't have time for that.
I agree with your skepticism regarding people who express a lot of certainty about what will work, and what will happen in extreme and untested circumstances.
However, I strongly disagree that principles and morality aren’t essential. This is because when figuring out, as you say, ‘what works best’, there is no single definition of ‘best’. In fact, as a general rule, there’s thousands of competing ones. Principles are how you do a reasonable job of making consistent decisions towards meaningful change.
In addition to a system working well, it also needs to be understood to be working well by the people that live in it. If some definition of a ‘best’ metric was delivered by a Kafkaesque convoluted system that people found confusing, one which works well-enough on simple principles might be preferable.
However, I strongly disagree that principles and morality aren’t essential. This is because when figuring out, as you say, ‘what works best’, there is no single definition of ‘best’. In fact, as a general rule, there’s thousands of competing ones. Principles are how you do a reasonable job of making consistent decisions towards meaningful change.
In addition to a system working well, it also needs to be understood to be working well by the people that live in it. If some definition of a ‘best’ metric was delivered by a Kafkaesque convoluted system that people found confusing, one which works well-enough on simple principles might be preferable.
I agree. I didn't mean to imply that principles aren't important - surely there must be some metric to judge progress against. Principles should hold in a generalized, zoomed-out view of a society. But in practice, there are numerous exceptions and edge cases. Like, "maximize freedom" is generally a good rule but not always.
I feel like the principles we come up with are just rough approximations of what we intuitively know but can't elegantly express. The true moral principle for society is probably a monstrous concatenation of if-else statements. If the zoom-out view of society still follows the principles, then I think that ought to be sufficient for its citizens' concerns about the society's effectiveness and direction.
I feel like the principles we come up with are just rough approximations of what we intuitively know but can't elegantly express. The true moral principle for society is probably a monstrous concatenation of if-else statements. If the zoom-out view of society still follows the principles, then I think that ought to be sufficient for its citizens' concerns about the society's effectiveness and direction.
> You run into the exactly same resource and distribution problems as the government has, and you are going to start instituting the same sort of structures sooner or later.
Yes. Volunteers fixing potholes seems fine.
But when about when a bridge needs replacing? I want to know that someone is following standard engineering and construction practices and that they're accountable to do so. I don't want to learn about Jimmy's Artisinal Welding by plunging to my death.
Yes. Volunteers fixing potholes seems fine.
But when about when a bridge needs replacing? I want to know that someone is following standard engineering and construction practices and that they're accountable to do so. I don't want to learn about Jimmy's Artisinal Welding by plunging to my death.
Actually there are a lot of problems that anarchists wouldn't run into that the government does. Political corruption - collusion between state and corporations with welfare for the wealthy and prisons and environmental destruction for the poor. Overspending on the military and on wars. A bloated and inefficient healthcare system run more for the benefit of insurance companies than for those requiring medical attention. Etcetera etcetera.
There's also no good reason to believe that anarchists wouldn't follow standard engineering and construction practices. Look at open source software, there's no state in control of practices there yet engineers tend to do just fine. In fact, there are plenty of examples where people cut corners on safety procedures within a capitalist society in order that they can get a competitive advantage in the market. I'd say the incentives of capitalism are more detrimental to good bridges than those of anarchism.
There's also no good reason to believe that anarchists wouldn't follow standard engineering and construction practices. Look at open source software, there's no state in control of practices there yet engineers tend to do just fine. In fact, there are plenty of examples where people cut corners on safety procedures within a capitalist society in order that they can get a competitive advantage in the market. I'd say the incentives of capitalism are more detrimental to good bridges than those of anarchism.
> Actually there are a lot of problems that anarchists wouldn't run into that the government does. Political corruption - collusion between state and corporations with welfare for the wealthy
I don't know why you think that a different organizational scheme would prevent corruption.
If you're going to build a bridge, somebody has to do the work. Everybody else is going to pay them somehow. And if you're going to pick someone to do the work, somebody has to choose. It's untenable to have every decision made by all people, so everyone will delegate, say, construction hiring decisions, to someone.
Now the Construction Hiring Decider can pick who gets paid to work. Who will he/she choose? Will it be based on skill, personal connections, ethnic bias - or maybe kickbacks?
You can't run any large group without delegating some responsibilities. As soon as anybody has any decision-making power delegated to them, they can misuse it. There is no system that can totally prevent that. And the more structures of accountability and shared decision-making you build to safeguard power, the more it looks like a democratic government.
I don't know why you think that a different organizational scheme would prevent corruption.
If you're going to build a bridge, somebody has to do the work. Everybody else is going to pay them somehow. And if you're going to pick someone to do the work, somebody has to choose. It's untenable to have every decision made by all people, so everyone will delegate, say, construction hiring decisions, to someone.
Now the Construction Hiring Decider can pick who gets paid to work. Who will he/she choose? Will it be based on skill, personal connections, ethnic bias - or maybe kickbacks?
You can't run any large group without delegating some responsibilities. As soon as anybody has any decision-making power delegated to them, they can misuse it. There is no system that can totally prevent that. And the more structures of accountability and shared decision-making you build to safeguard power, the more it looks like a democratic government.
I don't know why you think pay comes into this. Anarchists generally don't believe in a market economy.
You do raise good points but anarchists are not all juvenile and naive as many think and, seeing as anarchism has been around for >100 years, people have thought of these issues before you. Decision-making definitely has to be delegated to people sometimes and the manner in which this is done is important. Usually anarchists emphasise frequent rotation and possibility for immediate recall in order that no one may abuse their power.
I think of it as being similar to how science is funded by national agencies. There is a big pool of resources and it gets dispersed among researchers according to some process. That process usually involves nominating a team of scientists in the relevant field to judge where the resources would be best spent. Everyone ultimately has the same goal of advancing research most effectively and so they usually make the best choices possible. The panel is different every year so there it's hard to have collusion going on. Academia definitely has its problems with entrenched hierarchies of course but those come about for different reasons.
It's impossible to make a perfect system but it's clear we could do better. Anarchists just want to dilute unjust power structures as much as possible. There are examples of organisations that are successfully run like this so it's not like these are utopian ideas.
You do raise good points but anarchists are not all juvenile and naive as many think and, seeing as anarchism has been around for >100 years, people have thought of these issues before you. Decision-making definitely has to be delegated to people sometimes and the manner in which this is done is important. Usually anarchists emphasise frequent rotation and possibility for immediate recall in order that no one may abuse their power.
I think of it as being similar to how science is funded by national agencies. There is a big pool of resources and it gets dispersed among researchers according to some process. That process usually involves nominating a team of scientists in the relevant field to judge where the resources would be best spent. Everyone ultimately has the same goal of advancing research most effectively and so they usually make the best choices possible. The panel is different every year so there it's hard to have collusion going on. Academia definitely has its problems with entrenched hierarchies of course but those come about for different reasons.
It's impossible to make a perfect system but it's clear we could do better. Anarchists just want to dilute unjust power structures as much as possible. There are examples of organisations that are successfully run like this so it's not like these are utopian ideas.
> Look at open source software, there's no state in control of practices there yet engineers tend to do just fine.
A very large fraction of open source software is crap. Fortunately we get to choose which OSS programs we use. Not so for bridges.
A very large fraction of open source software is crap. Fortunately we get to choose which OSS programs we use. Not so for bridges.
> There's also no good reason to believe that anarchists wouldn't follow standard engineering and construction practices.
There's also then no accountability for when it fails. Not that we have that now, necessarily, in software "engineering", but in other engineering disciplines, we do.
A licensed engineer can lose their license (a huge professional blow) and be potentially civilly and/or criminally held liable for designs they signed off on that fail or violate appropriate ethical standards of their governing body, e.g. IEEE for electrical engineers.
There's also then no accountability for when it fails. Not that we have that now, necessarily, in software "engineering", but in other engineering disciplines, we do.
A licensed engineer can lose their license (a huge professional blow) and be potentially civilly and/or criminally held liable for designs they signed off on that fail or violate appropriate ethical standards of their governing body, e.g. IEEE for electrical engineers.
The people who want the bridge built will hold the bridge building group to account.
Well, really, they'll choose a few qualified people from amongst themselves to hold the builders to account, because the whole town can't be asked show up to inspect their work every Tuesday.
Eventually they might even make it official by referring to those people as a "government".
Eventually they might even make it official by referring to those people as a "government".
Welding? You wish. That bridge will be held together with baling wire and duct tape, just like the buildings in the cityscape scenes from Idiocracy.
People used to do lots of things that they don't do anymore. When we look at history, whom do we admire? Those who "dreamed" enough to make improvements, or those who said "slavery, that's just human nature"?
The first problem is that it's not obvious to me what the benefit of an anarchistic society would be.
The best rule of figuring out fair playing rules in a society is thinking you are someone else, and what would you like to happen in their shoes. Once you find something that seems more or less fair for all parties it's a good sign it's not obviously bad.
Slavery almost immediately fails this test.
For example, it's not obvious to me how anarchistic societies will deal with violence and crime. Mob justice? Public opinion is extremely sensitive to mass paranoia. If we apply the test of "stepping into the shoes of someone else" and imagined myself as the suspect of a crime, I would much rather take the process system of a modern state over mob rule to handle my case.
Could you offer a counter example, from this fairness point of view, where an anarchistic society would outperform the state as implemented by western democracies?
The best rule of figuring out fair playing rules in a society is thinking you are someone else, and what would you like to happen in their shoes. Once you find something that seems more or less fair for all parties it's a good sign it's not obviously bad.
Slavery almost immediately fails this test.
For example, it's not obvious to me how anarchistic societies will deal with violence and crime. Mob justice? Public opinion is extremely sensitive to mass paranoia. If we apply the test of "stepping into the shoes of someone else" and imagined myself as the suspect of a crime, I would much rather take the process system of a modern state over mob rule to handle my case.
Could you offer a counter example, from this fairness point of view, where an anarchistic society would outperform the state as implemented by western democracies?
No software patents.
Less neocolonialist mass murder in foreign lands for the purpose of enriching armaments manufacturers and their agents in government and media.
How would an anarchy prevent a powerful and wealthy armaments manufacturer from funding and recruiting mercenaries to do neocolonialist mass murder in oil-rich foreign lands for fun and profit?
As long as its profitable, I can only see there being less constraints in doing so than there is now.
As long as its profitable, I can only see there being less constraints in doing so than there is now.
They didn't become wealthy and powerful by spending money. They did so by constructing an elaborate fear-based belief system by which the apparatus of the State could be steered to pay them money, much more money than was ever admitted, directly out of the pockets of those subject to the State. Like a religion, except more violent and less consensual. Note that I'm talking about steering the State, not the electorate. If a truly democratic vote on the topic were held today, the military would be a tenth its current size tomorrow. They don't have to worry about democratic votes; they just need to leave Congress enough plausible deniability about what's really going on.
They love this myth you perpetuate, of stealing foreign oil for fame and profit. As a nation, we have yet to see dollar one for all of our Middle Eastern atrocities dating back to the 1950s. All of this evil and violence has only ever profited the war pigs and their cronies. The rest of us have been stuck with the bill.
This line of thinking reminds me of the drug prohibitionists. "If we stop killing drug dealers, they'll be even wealthier and they'll kill everyone!" No, silly, if drugs could be sold without fear of violence then drug sales would not require violence. Our fifty-year prohibition has created a cohort of thugs who would have to age out of the business, but if we stopped giving them vast sums of money then they could be dealt with like any other violent people.
They love this myth you perpetuate, of stealing foreign oil for fame and profit. As a nation, we have yet to see dollar one for all of our Middle Eastern atrocities dating back to the 1950s. All of this evil and violence has only ever profited the war pigs and their cronies. The rest of us have been stuck with the bill.
This line of thinking reminds me of the drug prohibitionists. "If we stop killing drug dealers, they'll be even wealthier and they'll kill everyone!" No, silly, if drugs could be sold without fear of violence then drug sales would not require violence. Our fifty-year prohibition has created a cohort of thugs who would have to age out of the business, but if we stopped giving them vast sums of money then they could be dealt with like any other violent people.
It sounds like you are positioning anarchy as a reactionary tool of retribution towards the elites, rather than as a better way to govern.
It sounds like you are positioning anarchy as a reactionary tool of retribution towards the elites, rather than as a better way to govern.
So much packed into one sentence! If you think of anarchism as ever having been suggested as "a better way to govern", please go back to the beginning and try again. It is instead a better way to live. This thing you think we need, we don't actually need. And what "retribution"? Would it be "retribution" to tell "the elites" sorry you can't continue spending trillions of our public dollars bombing innocents for no discernible reason?
Also, I would object to the form of your discourse. You asked for a counterexample, and multiple people have provided those. Please either argue against the counterexamples or concede the point.
So much packed into one sentence! If you think of anarchism as ever having been suggested as "a better way to govern", please go back to the beginning and try again. It is instead a better way to live. This thing you think we need, we don't actually need. And what "retribution"? Would it be "retribution" to tell "the elites" sorry you can't continue spending trillions of our public dollars bombing innocents for no discernible reason?
Also, I would object to the form of your discourse. You asked for a counterexample, and multiple people have provided those. Please either argue against the counterexamples or concede the point.
A counterexample: I live in Finland, we have no colonialist past or present and our foreign policy is based on not trying to piss anyone too much. We are a parlamentarian democracy, we are among the most egalitarian countries in the world and according to the metrics of a recent UN survey currently 'the happiest'.
Like I wrote above, I don't really see 'not being anarchistic' as the root cause of whatever ills anarchism is claimed to cure.
Look, if I could choose the psychological characteristics of my species I'd want to live in a communist utopia with actual egalitarianism. But it just does not work. It's been tried with a heavy human toll. Likewise for anarchism. If someone is pedddling a system for you that has no chance of working in the current world we are living in I would really question either the motives or the rationality of the proponent.
This is turning rapidly quite political... I think our main difference is in how we believe a large ensemble of human beings is capable of behaving. We both would like that humankind could live as a huge trusting family. I don't see how that could be possible at the present moment.
Like I wrote above, I don't really see 'not being anarchistic' as the root cause of whatever ills anarchism is claimed to cure.
Look, if I could choose the psychological characteristics of my species I'd want to live in a communist utopia with actual egalitarianism. But it just does not work. It's been tried with a heavy human toll. Likewise for anarchism. If someone is pedddling a system for you that has no chance of working in the current world we are living in I would really question either the motives or the rationality of the proponent.
This is turning rapidly quite political... I think our main difference is in how we believe a large ensemble of human beings is capable of behaving. We both would like that humankind could live as a huge trusting family. I don't see how that could be possible at the present moment.
I don't perceive anything we've said here as particularly political? (Other than the obvious: arguments for and against anarchism, which is a political concept but doesn't field any candidates.) But since you raise the issue...
One wouldn't expect anyone from Finland, Switzerland, etc. to complain too much about the government. For the time being, these nations have "good" governments. Voters have some effect on national policies, police aren't slaughtering innocents with impunity at home, military isn't doing the same in numerous locations abroad. Please have some sympathy for the majority of humanity! You'll turn into us before we turn into you, if for no other reason than by a reversion to the mean. After all we export our delusions. Some people have seen enough American news to believe that it's an advantage to be on our "side" in an armed conflict.
I have really enjoyed the TV series "Okkupert", and I do sympathize with any nation that borders a schizophrenic totalizing militarist kleptocracy, because the in the long term there will be violence. That's why I sympathize with Mexico.
One wouldn't expect anyone from Finland, Switzerland, etc. to complain too much about the government. For the time being, these nations have "good" governments. Voters have some effect on national policies, police aren't slaughtering innocents with impunity at home, military isn't doing the same in numerous locations abroad. Please have some sympathy for the majority of humanity! You'll turn into us before we turn into you, if for no other reason than by a reversion to the mean. After all we export our delusions. Some people have seen enough American news to believe that it's an advantage to be on our "side" in an armed conflict.
I have really enjoyed the TV series "Okkupert", and I do sympathize with any nation that borders a schizophrenic totalizing militarist kleptocracy, because the in the long term there will be violence. That's why I sympathize with Mexico.
As a person living in a country next to Russia, I actually find US military industrial complex as a comforting geopolitical counterbalance.
I know lots of places have turned to shit thanks to US, so, I have no idea how to balance this fairly.
I know lots of places have turned to shit thanks to US, so, I have no idea how to balance this fairly.
You seem to know a little about what you're talking about but you should really read further before making the kinds of claims you're making. There is lots of literature on how anarchist societies have dealt with crime and there is no question that they are fairer than modern western societies with their gross wealth inequalities, mass incarceration, racism, colonialism, etc.
Right now, in Kurdish Syria (otherwise known as Rojava), there is a society built on principles that resemble anarchism pretty closely. They have very interesting decision-making processes, resource-management, and systems of justice. They also have pretty much no police as it isn't seen as necessary. There are lots of resources to learn about the details, here's one account I think is pretty good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4PVYxa28eE
Right now, in Kurdish Syria (otherwise known as Rojava), there is a society built on principles that resemble anarchism pretty closely. They have very interesting decision-making processes, resource-management, and systems of justice. They also have pretty much no police as it isn't seen as necessary. There are lots of resources to learn about the details, here's one account I think is pretty good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4PVYxa28eE
I'm living in a western democracy (Finland) with very little inequality, very lenient justice system and no colonialism. Out police is respected and admired. Recently we were gauged as the happiest country in the world (0).
I just don't see how anarco-syndicalism would improve our lot.
With this background, I would search solution to the worlds problems from somewhere else than pitting ananrchism against democratic hierarchy.
I would suggest you look into the current situation on gender equality in kurdish nation before claiming it all together a 'better way'.
(0) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/14/finland-happie...
I just don't see how anarco-syndicalism would improve our lot.
With this background, I would search solution to the worlds problems from somewhere else than pitting ananrchism against democratic hierarchy.
I would suggest you look into the current situation on gender equality in kurdish nation before claiming it all together a 'better way'.
(0) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/14/finland-happie...
Finland may be pretty exceptional but your economy still benefits from western subjugation of people in poorer places. Where do all the parts and raw materials for your electronics companies come from?
One of the major components of the kurdish revolution is gender equality and female liberation, that's why the YPJ units have been so popular in the media...
One of the major components of the kurdish revolution is gender equality and female liberation, that's why the YPJ units have been so popular in the media...
> you are going to start instituting the same sort of structures sooner or later
You and others in this thread seem to think that anarchists oppose all forms of authority, social organization and rules.
This is not correct. Anarchists oppose only irrational authority as explained in:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/Why_do_anarchist...
You and others in this thread seem to think that anarchists oppose all forms of authority, social organization and rules.
This is not correct. Anarchists oppose only irrational authority as explained in:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/Why_do_anarchist...
My favorite recently was the model explained to me where instead of receiving civil services from a single government without a choice, there are multiple corporatist organizations that run business and provide protection/security, a judicial system, enforcers, an executive system, so on and so forth, and you can pick and choose which one you want to be part of, swearing into their system and agreeing to pay your share into their system.
Then it hit me- this form of government already exists, and it is called the Mafia.
Then it hit me- this form of government already exists, and it is called the Mafia.
Yep. Going further, you will realize that the government is simply the largest mob organization in the region (you can choose among mobsters but you always have to pay the government's tax in addition to that).
> Humans self organize into hierarchical system
I never asked for this system, let alone actively tried to organise it
I never asked for this system, let alone actively tried to organise it
> “You run into the exactly same resource and distribution problems as the government has, and you are going to start instituting the same sort of structures sooner or later.”
This is spot on. I think we would have to radically change our species behavioral tendencies before anarchy based societies would ever work like they think they should.
This is spot on. I think we would have to radically change our species behavioral tendencies before anarchy based societies would ever work like they think they should.
Yes, the problem with anarchy is exactly the same problem as with communism. It's principles are not compatible with human nature as it currently is.
Ignoring the safety of the people doing the fixing for a moment, how do we know that these potholes have been fixed in a way that'll last a long time and be safe? If I want to know the method and materials used, where do I go to find that out?
I don't know how it's done on the West Coast, but here in New Hampshire they're not usually fixed in a way that will last a long time due to the fact frost heaves will simply bring them back again. Given the nature of the freeze, run plows over them, thaw, possibly refreeze schedule, the city uses cold patches all the time. I am no road engineer, but I'm guessing attempting to truly "fix" winter-generated potholes would simply move them around by 5 or 10 feet.
I destroyed my tire on a pothole last year and I had to change the entire wheel. I doubt a "fixed" pothole can be more damaging than an unfixed one.
It's possible that an incorrectly fixed pothole would a) degrade far more quickly and b) do so in a manner that expands the pothole more than just leaving it alone would have.
Right. It's not so much about the pothole today, as much as it is the health of the entire road over the next decade+.
That said, addressing this and other concerns isn't rocket science. The city could easily publish a detailed guide to filling potholes (what materials are ok, what materials are not, what process to use, etc).
That said, addressing this and other concerns isn't rocket science. The city could easily publish a detailed guide to filling potholes (what materials are ok, what materials are not, what process to use, etc).
Publishing a guide to filling in potholes seems like it would create controversy with the public, who would ask why it appears the city expects citizens to fill in potholes themselves.
It's much easier to just allow citizens to call a number and report a pothole. Seattle does that and potholes get filled fairly quickly, they even have a phone app that allows you to report all kinds of problems.
Here's Seattle's pothole map showing where and when they have been fixed.
http://web6.seattle.gov/sdot/potholemap/
It's much easier to just allow citizens to call a number and report a pothole. Seattle does that and potholes get filled fairly quickly, they even have a phone app that allows you to report all kinds of problems.
Here's Seattle's pothole map showing where and when they have been fixed.
http://web6.seattle.gov/sdot/potholemap/
> Seattle does that and potholes get filled fairly quickly,
We must have different definitions of quickly! Or perhaps different standards for “pothole”.
We must have different definitions of quickly! Or perhaps different standards for “pothole”.
A guide would create potential legal liability, wouldn't it?
You could publish it in a way that was more "How we repair our potholes." Include the types of materials, the procedure, etc. This would mask it so that you could plausibly deny encouraging citizens to self-repair.
That's true. Good thinking.
Council crews everywhere could realistically have best-practice blogs detailing all sorts of stuff to encourage residents to aim for a certain standard (verge upkeep, etc) or achieve other targets (water usage and the like).
Council crews everywhere could realistically have best-practice blogs detailing all sorts of stuff to encourage residents to aim for a certain standard (verge upkeep, etc) or achieve other targets (water usage and the like).
They're patching asphalt. By definition, asphalt roads do not last and are not safe.
Many local governments grab any able bodied people to shovel semi-hot asphalt into the holes and let the traffic pack it in. This is not the recommended procedure by any standard, but people have gotten used to the incompetence and actually believe that this is proper, just because someone official is doing it.
Many local governments grab any able bodied people to shovel semi-hot asphalt into the holes and let the traffic pack it in. This is not the recommended procedure by any standard, but people have gotten used to the incompetence and actually believe that this is proper, just because someone official is doing it.
I've seen an asphalt road to a neighbourhood of approx. 300 houses which was the same as new after 30 years without any need of repairment. Was destroyed by dozers to get there a telephone cable. It was exceptionally fun because it's in russian megapolis.
Have you seen how the government-sanctioned entities fix potholes?
It doesn't take rocket science to shovel in a bunch of cold-patch and sand and tamp it down.
And that is what they do, unless they are completely repaving the road.
It doesn't take rocket science to shovel in a bunch of cold-patch and sand and tamp it down.
And that is what they do, unless they are completely repaving the road.
I've heard from some ex council workers that they are not doing it correctly. You have to cut around the hole, then fill in this wider hole. Basically the bits around a pot hole are weak, so they have to go also. If you just fill in the hole, then a new one will form very easily around the interface of the new tarmac and the decaying road.
I live in Baltimore, they just pile on some asphalt and call it a day. We are left with these massive bumps in the road. I'll take anarchy road over Baltimore City's work any day.
People in the UK took a different approach to get potholes filled in [1] - basically spray painting penises on them to shame the Council into filling them in.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32448103/mystery-artis...
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32448103/mystery-artis...
Not that it matters really, but I thought I heard this story quite a while ago, and in fact this article was published: MAR 15, 2017
"They also run the risk of being held personally liable if someone were to be injured by the pothole they attempted to fix"
This makes me uncomfortable - are municipalities held accountable for injuries caused by a pothole? Are they held liable for injuries caused by a fixed pothole?
"They also run the risk of being held personally liable if someone were to be injured by the pothole they attempted to fix"
This makes me uncomfortable - are municipalities held accountable for injuries caused by a pothole? Are they held liable for injuries caused by a fixed pothole?
I replied at the same time with the same concern. Shouldn't the municipalities be more concerned about injuries potholes can cause vs. the injuries one could potentially suffer from fixing them?
"are municipalities held accountable for injuries caused by a pothole?"
I know some municipalities will pay claims for tire/wheel damage caused by roads in disrepair if you file a claim with evidence. Presumably this same admission of liability could be upheld by courts if injuries had resulted from a problem like this.
I know some municipalities will pay claims for tire/wheel damage caused by roads in disrepair if you file a claim with evidence. Presumably this same admission of liability could be upheld by courts if injuries had resulted from a problem like this.
That depends on the municipality, I think.
> Don’t get us wrong, we believe that many of these services are crucial for society, like healthcare, education, and maintained roadways, but we believe that the way to achieve access for all is by deconstructing the state and capitalism, as well as other coercive hierarchies that exist in our society
One thing that always struck me, was in a capitialistic society we are actually all incentivised to fix potholes ourselves... Basically the improved potholes keep us safe, improve business, etc. I think many are just so short sighted, that when they think of capitalism they think of the standard "greedy corporation"
If people actually thought two steps ahead (including said corporation) theyd be more like Amazon, improve logistics and you improve the world. Literally, everyone profits. That's the point of capitalism, you can basically do what you want. These guys are filling potholes for themselves, they said as much. That's a selfish, capitalism-centric act
One thing that always struck me, was in a capitialistic society we are actually all incentivised to fix potholes ourselves... Basically the improved potholes keep us safe, improve business, etc. I think many are just so short sighted, that when they think of capitalism they think of the standard "greedy corporation"
If people actually thought two steps ahead (including said corporation) theyd be more like Amazon, improve logistics and you improve the world. Literally, everyone profits. That's the point of capitalism, you can basically do what you want. These guys are filling potholes for themselves, they said as much. That's a selfish, capitalism-centric act
People have always worked to make their environment better for themselves and everyone prior to capitalism. Perhaps you're the one who bought into the propaganda and claim for capitalism properties that have nothing to do with it as a mode of production.
These people who existed “prior to capitalism”, what political and economic model did they have?
You might enjoy David Graeber’s book Debt: The First 5000 Years, which goes into great detail about the extremely varied social/economic relationships found in cultures around the world.
The book is full of interesting informal systems of exchange, slyly presenting them as alternatives to the quantitative capital system we have today, but there are always tradeoffs. Reading the book I kept thinking how terrible it must have been to argue being wronged if you are a party that suffers a violation of the social exchange system and you're on the socially lower end (of power, popularity, etc.), Without a formal system. At least in our capital system if you are socially dispossessed and the numbers don't add up, there is the possibility of audit and petioning being the victim of fraud.
You don't need propaganda to value capitalism. Capitalism is the natural product of freedom. It is not a designed system, it is an emergent system.
> Capitalism is the natural product of freedom.
This is true in the sense that it is the natural products of a very specific conception of property rights that was advanced by the commercial class (they became the capitalist class) for their own benefit, and for which, several centuries after the model began becoming dominant in Western Europe “natural rights” justifications were concocted.
> It is not a designed system, it is an emergent system.
It wasn't “designed” in the sense of deep theory and engineering, and it is “emergent” in the sense that it is a product of individual advantage seeking by members of a particular social group.
This is true in the sense that it is the natural products of a very specific conception of property rights that was advanced by the commercial class (they became the capitalist class) for their own benefit, and for which, several centuries after the model began becoming dominant in Western Europe “natural rights” justifications were concocted.
> It is not a designed system, it is an emergent system.
It wasn't “designed” in the sense of deep theory and engineering, and it is “emergent” in the sense that it is a product of individual advantage seeking by members of a particular social group.
Which business pays for it? I don't want mine to pay for it, because someone else will. And I can keep using the road because who's gonna stop me?
> One thing that always struck me, was in a capitialistic society we are actually all incentivised to fix potholes ourselves
Is it not the case that in any society, we are all incentivised to fix it ourselves. Who is the government in your society? Us or them? Why not both?
> One thing that always struck me, was in a capitialistic society we are actually all incentivised to fix potholes ourselves
Is it not the case that in any society, we are all incentivised to fix it ourselves. Who is the government in your society? Us or them? Why not both?
Them. Unfortunately, a single person has very little ability to impact his or her government. That, combined with the observed fact that the goal of any government organization eventually becomes the perpetuation of that organization, is why the answer to your question cannot be "both".
Everyone is a single person, and yet almost everything we've ever accomplished has been collaborations.
> That, combined with the observed fact that the goal of any government organization eventually becomes the perpetuation of that organization
That may or may not be true, but regardless, it's then good that most developed countries have established a form of government where organizations within that government don't have complete autonomy and always answer to some form of elected representative of the people.
> That, combined with the observed fact that the goal of any government organization eventually becomes the perpetuation of that organization
That may or may not be true, but regardless, it's then good that most developed countries have established a form of government where organizations within that government don't have complete autonomy and always answer to some form of elected representative of the people.
>Literally, everyone profits. That's the point of capitalism, you can basically do what you want. These guys are filling potholes for themselves, they said as much. That's a selfish, capitalism-centric act
Everything can be reduced to egoism if you look in close enough. The problem is that when taking an approximation capitalism is short sighted. Short term profit is taken to be a good approximation for long term profit, which in turn is taken to be a good approximation for continued sustainability. Consider: if I start a business, I probably expect it to be profitable a year from now. If I am making an ambitious startup, I might allow five or ten years to be profitable. If I am Jeff Bezos, I might allow thirty years to be profitable. All these are assumed to approximate the very long term. If my business is profitable next year, I assume I will be able to keep running it for ten years. If I've run my business for ten years, then I assume I will be able to pass it to my children. If I get my business from my parents, then I assume it will be with the family forever.
Consider: I start a fishing business. I take a loan out for a boat and some nets, and pay them off by years end. Now I make a profit selling my fish. This is a success under capitalism. If I am very successful, and manage to buy a few more boats and hire some workers to man them, and am raking in money in ten years, this is considered a major success under capitalism. Note that we have never asked whether or not I fish sustainably. What if by the eleventh year the fish have run out, and I go bankrupt? What if people who survived off my fish starved to death? This is no longer a success, either from a capitalist or egoist perspective. But if we use profit as a proxy for success, for the first ten years it /was/ a success.
Now if we had called Bezos in to consult, he would have told us this would happen and advised us to start a different business. But most people aren't Bezos. Furthermore, capitalism doesn't encourage us to think like Bezos. If I'm raking it in for ten years, why don't I squirrel away a couple million into a savings account, and live off that as my retirement? If I do, why should I care about the business going bankrupt (limited liability FTW), and the people starving? In other words: Jeff Bezos is worth 100 billion dollars. Why doesn't he buy up a small nation, along with all the people living there to take care of him, and live the highest life imaginable until he dies (and pass it on to his children until they die)? The answer to this question sure as hell isn't because of capitalism.
Everything can be reduced to egoism if you look in close enough. The problem is that when taking an approximation capitalism is short sighted. Short term profit is taken to be a good approximation for long term profit, which in turn is taken to be a good approximation for continued sustainability. Consider: if I start a business, I probably expect it to be profitable a year from now. If I am making an ambitious startup, I might allow five or ten years to be profitable. If I am Jeff Bezos, I might allow thirty years to be profitable. All these are assumed to approximate the very long term. If my business is profitable next year, I assume I will be able to keep running it for ten years. If I've run my business for ten years, then I assume I will be able to pass it to my children. If I get my business from my parents, then I assume it will be with the family forever.
Consider: I start a fishing business. I take a loan out for a boat and some nets, and pay them off by years end. Now I make a profit selling my fish. This is a success under capitalism. If I am very successful, and manage to buy a few more boats and hire some workers to man them, and am raking in money in ten years, this is considered a major success under capitalism. Note that we have never asked whether or not I fish sustainably. What if by the eleventh year the fish have run out, and I go bankrupt? What if people who survived off my fish starved to death? This is no longer a success, either from a capitalist or egoist perspective. But if we use profit as a proxy for success, for the first ten years it /was/ a success.
Now if we had called Bezos in to consult, he would have told us this would happen and advised us to start a different business. But most people aren't Bezos. Furthermore, capitalism doesn't encourage us to think like Bezos. If I'm raking it in for ten years, why don't I squirrel away a couple million into a savings account, and live off that as my retirement? If I do, why should I care about the business going bankrupt (limited liability FTW), and the people starving? In other words: Jeff Bezos is worth 100 billion dollars. Why doesn't he buy up a small nation, along with all the people living there to take care of him, and live the highest life imaginable until he dies (and pass it on to his children until they die)? The answer to this question sure as hell isn't because of capitalism.
> Note that we have never asked whether or not I fish sustainably.
That's up to the owner of the fish, who will raise the price of your license if you start destroying his capital. You are talking about capitalism, where the fish is owned by someone - right?
(With the last paragraph you seem to argue against yourself. It is very disturbing.)
That's up to the owner of the fish, who will raise the price of your license if you start destroying his capital. You are talking about capitalism, where the fish is owned by someone - right?
(With the last paragraph you seem to argue against yourself. It is very disturbing.)
The "owner of the fish" is mankind in common, of course. Generally, the owner's interest is defended by the government of a given territory. But the government is not always the best steward of the long term sustainability of the land or its resources. This is for the same reason as before: it is very easy to measure short term success, but difficult to measure long term success. And even when you can predict long term success, many people will argue that you shouldn't take it into account.
You're just begging for a tragedy of the commons, which is a tragedy for a reason.
I am an anarchist (the capitalist sort, not the weird "we're really liberals" socialist one) and I don't want the government to defend my anything. In any case, who defends what was not in question; I was just pointing out that sustainability is not an issue in a (truly) capitalist society, because the owner of a resource can always decide to limit consumption.
I am an anarchist (the capitalist sort, not the weird "we're really liberals" socialist one) and I don't want the government to defend my anything. In any case, who defends what was not in question; I was just pointing out that sustainability is not an issue in a (truly) capitalist society, because the owner of a resource can always decide to limit consumption.
The most successful people change with the times. In this case some kind of fish farming is your best bet for long term sustainability. Just like foresters plant trees, or hunters are involved in wildlife conservation efforts.
Obviously they don't always do that, but to assume you can simply run things the same exact way as your ancestors is foolish.
Obviously they don't always do that, but to assume you can simply run things the same exact way as your ancestors is foolish.
...unless it violates someone else's property rights. The point of capitalism is that people can own things, and you can do what you want as long as you don't violate that system of ownership. The point of anarchism is that you can basically do what you want.
> The point of anarchism is that you can basically do what you want.
This is a simplistic characterisation. Anarchists hold individual liberty in the highest regard but also believe in solidarity and mutual aid. You can "basically do what you want" as long as you aren't restricting the individual freedom of others but rather supporting everyone in having access to the same means and rights as you do. Since exploitation of people is so endemic in our society, anarchists work mainly to free themselves and others from oppressive systems. Right now we can't do what we want, so anarchists fight against the social dynamics which are preventing this.
This is a simplistic characterisation. Anarchists hold individual liberty in the highest regard but also believe in solidarity and mutual aid. You can "basically do what you want" as long as you aren't restricting the individual freedom of others but rather supporting everyone in having access to the same means and rights as you do. Since exploitation of people is so endemic in our society, anarchists work mainly to free themselves and others from oppressive systems. Right now we can't do what we want, so anarchists fight against the social dynamics which are preventing this.
Well, but in the absence of an overriding rulership, i.e. anarchy, you actually can do what you want even if you're restricting the individual freedom of others and denying them access to the same means and rights as you do. There's clear motivation for some people to do that, and what's going to prevent them from doing that to weaker or less resourceful people? And a system capable and intent on effectively doing that essentially becomes a de facto system of governance, and the situation ceases to be an anarchy.
System of governance is different to a state. Anarchists are against the state but not necessarily against government, as long as that government's power comes from voluntary association and not by coercion.
This is a great clarification, not sure why the downvotes.
“Right now we can’t do what we want...”
What is it you want to do that you’re not allowed to?
Also, why are anarchist teaming up with communist in order to limit free speech?
I’m specifically talking about Antifa trying to stop a jew (Shapiro) and a gay man married to a black man (Milo) from speaking at Berkeley?
Do anarchists support free speech or not?
What is it you want to do that you’re not allowed to?
Also, why are anarchist teaming up with communist in order to limit free speech?
I’m specifically talking about Antifa trying to stop a jew (Shapiro) and a gay man married to a black man (Milo) from speaking at Berkeley?
Do anarchists support free speech or not?
Anarchists are not a monolithic block.
Communism is an anarchist philosophy, ultimately... Agree with it or not, a (simplified) original reading of the Marxist historical programme involves a dialectic model whereby you wind up in a stateless society by building up and tearing down a central state.
This would contrast with anarchocapitalists who arguably advocate a more direct route to anarchy, usually tinged with crypto conservative sentiments...
And probably a classical socialist (as in Benjamin Tucker) take on anarchism would be still different, but I don't think there are many of them left, though there might be some contemporary philosophical adherents to Max stirner that live in that space there.
Communism is an anarchist philosophy, ultimately... Agree with it or not, a (simplified) original reading of the Marxist historical programme involves a dialectic model whereby you wind up in a stateless society by building up and tearing down a central state.
This would contrast with anarchocapitalists who arguably advocate a more direct route to anarchy, usually tinged with crypto conservative sentiments...
And probably a classical socialist (as in Benjamin Tucker) take on anarchism would be still different, but I don't think there are many of them left, though there might be some contemporary philosophical adherents to Max stirner that live in that space there.
I don't consider anarchocapitalists part of the Anarchist tradition. Even Rothbard said "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."
Anarchists, like other communists, have as their goal a "classless, moneyless, stateless society". This absolutely cannot include capitalism because any capitalist society inherently allows for classes to exist and would probably require money. Furthermore, it is pretty evident that capitalism cannot exist without a state and therefore the term "anarchocapitalism" is an oxymoron.
Anarchists, like other communists, have as their goal a "classless, moneyless, stateless society". This absolutely cannot include capitalism because any capitalist society inherently allows for classes to exist and would probably require money. Furthermore, it is pretty evident that capitalism cannot exist without a state and therefore the term "anarchocapitalism" is an oxymoron.
Anarchocapitalists are not strongly connected to the anarchist tradition, though they do inherit a thin thread via Benjamin Tucker, and American libertarianism. They are still anarchists in the strictest sense in that they are for the abolition of the state (open question of if property rights make sense in a stateless society), even if they got there via a largely different tradition. Classless and moneyless attributes are optional in anarchism though they are features of some branches of the tradition, in particular those that emerged from the Marx branch. I doubt Tucker, for example, would have claimed a moneyless and classless society as necessary attributes of his social ideal, and he was definitely a classical socialist anarchist.
In most cases, the antidote to dangerous speech is more speech.
But history shows that when fascists have free speech, they use that freedom to take away the right to free speech and free assembly from their opponents.
And it gets much, much worse after that.
Fascism is so dangerous that it cannot be allowed a foothold. That's why Antifa shut down fascist speech.
Being gay, black or Jewish has nothing to do with it.
But history shows that when fascists have free speech, they use that freedom to take away the right to free speech and free assembly from their opponents.
And it gets much, much worse after that.
Fascism is so dangerous that it cannot be allowed a foothold. That's why Antifa shut down fascist speech.
Being gay, black or Jewish has nothing to do with it.
Cool. I’m glad you said that.
Who dictates what is dangerous speech? You? A mob?
Now do yourself a favor and go and watch their speeches, then come back and quote the facist bits. I bet you can’t...because I know you can’t.
Who dictates what is dangerous speech? You? A mob?
Now do yourself a favor and go and watch their speeches, then come back and quote the facist bits. I bet you can’t...because I know you can’t.
You are really stretching the idea of free speech. The point is that you are free from state repression of your speech because the state is supposed to have a monopoly on force. If the only legitimate use of force in society is used against those that speak out against it, you are living in a very unfree society.
I'll frame the antifa situation in more microcosmical terms that make it simpler to understand: Say some survivors from a natural disaster at a village down the road have shown up in your town and are camping at the outskirts, trying to get back on their feet. There have always been some cultural animosities towards these people but they haven't done any harm to the townspeople. Some farmers have recently lost some chickens, probably due to an increase of the local fox population as the foxes also move away from the natural disaster. A local schemer sees an opportunity to gain power and starts convincing everyone that the villagers from out of town have been stealing chickens and that it is the current mayor's fault for allowing them to stay at the outskirts.
The schemer never says to do so himself, but knows that there are other townspeople that are willing to commit violent acts towards the blow-ins, particularly some of the farmers that have been poorly affected by the loss of chickens. Despite the knowledge that his words - especially when amplified by an audience of followers - will embolden the more violent factions in their aims, he continues to speak out loudly against the outsiders because it is gaining him so much popularity.
Another group, who are friendly towards the poor sods that lost their homes and entire livelihoods, have noticed the dangerous dynamic that is brewing among the violent groups that are threatening the outsiders. They see that the dangerous words of the schemer are turning more people to support the violent acts. They see that the mayor has been put in a tough place by the schemer's words, and any denunciation of the schemer's agenda would appear an abuse of his power - shutting down the "free speech" of the schemer - or an intolerance that would lose him the chance of re-election. They decide to take matters into their own hands and themselves denounce the schemer and his tirades. They go to his speaking events to disrupt them and point out his hypocrisy. This leads to clashes between them and the violent followers of the schemer. The schemer appeals to the townspeople as a victim, claiming that the friendly group are violent instigators of injustice against his freedom to speak ill of the outsiders...
I think it's obvious who's who in the story. Shapiro and Yiannopoulos have absolutely said fascist things. (Hitler sounded reasonable to many people at the time too.) Even if they don't themselves believe in fascism, their failure to denounce the violent groups who have used their rhetoric to justify violence is damning enough.
> Who dictates what is dangerous speech?
Maybe the people that are on the receiving end of actual violence that is being motivated by said speech. It's all around you and you're just choosing not to see it because it's not affecting you personally.
I'll frame the antifa situation in more microcosmical terms that make it simpler to understand: Say some survivors from a natural disaster at a village down the road have shown up in your town and are camping at the outskirts, trying to get back on their feet. There have always been some cultural animosities towards these people but they haven't done any harm to the townspeople. Some farmers have recently lost some chickens, probably due to an increase of the local fox population as the foxes also move away from the natural disaster. A local schemer sees an opportunity to gain power and starts convincing everyone that the villagers from out of town have been stealing chickens and that it is the current mayor's fault for allowing them to stay at the outskirts.
The schemer never says to do so himself, but knows that there are other townspeople that are willing to commit violent acts towards the blow-ins, particularly some of the farmers that have been poorly affected by the loss of chickens. Despite the knowledge that his words - especially when amplified by an audience of followers - will embolden the more violent factions in their aims, he continues to speak out loudly against the outsiders because it is gaining him so much popularity.
Another group, who are friendly towards the poor sods that lost their homes and entire livelihoods, have noticed the dangerous dynamic that is brewing among the violent groups that are threatening the outsiders. They see that the dangerous words of the schemer are turning more people to support the violent acts. They see that the mayor has been put in a tough place by the schemer's words, and any denunciation of the schemer's agenda would appear an abuse of his power - shutting down the "free speech" of the schemer - or an intolerance that would lose him the chance of re-election. They decide to take matters into their own hands and themselves denounce the schemer and his tirades. They go to his speaking events to disrupt them and point out his hypocrisy. This leads to clashes between them and the violent followers of the schemer. The schemer appeals to the townspeople as a victim, claiming that the friendly group are violent instigators of injustice against his freedom to speak ill of the outsiders...
I think it's obvious who's who in the story. Shapiro and Yiannopoulos have absolutely said fascist things. (Hitler sounded reasonable to many people at the time too.) Even if they don't themselves believe in fascism, their failure to denounce the violent groups who have used their rhetoric to justify violence is damning enough.
> Who dictates what is dangerous speech?
Maybe the people that are on the receiving end of actual violence that is being motivated by said speech. It's all around you and you're just choosing not to see it because it's not affecting you personally.
I asked for quotes and got:
“Shapiro and Yiannopoulos have absolutely said fascist things.”
So no quotes then? We’ll just take your word for it?
“Shapiro and Yiannopoulos have absolutely said fascist things.”
So no quotes then? We’ll just take your word for it?
It is likely that they view the speakers as advocates of ideas that limit the individual freedoms of others. Making it about free speech is a bit of a misdirection. When that speech furthers a system they disagree with, they are likely to make a stand against that speech.
I organized a crew to do this in the Santa Cruz mountains last year. I did it after losing two tires in the same car to the same pothole. That gets expensive.
I tried to work with the county to make it official, the idea was to form a group of trained, careful people that would be to public works what the volunteer fire department is to Cal-Fire. Then we could be insured, etc.
The county wanted no part of it even though their budget, at the time, was about $1M/year for 600 miles of roads (that's pathetic and the roads show it. The road I'm on hasn't been paved or screened for decades and it's falling apart, just like many others).
I was hoping we could pioneer a model that other states/counties could emulate. Still am but don't know how to get there. We can bring way more people to the table than the county can. For example, they fill potholes with 2 people, one guy driving a pickup, one guy on the back shoveling patch. We did that (as you'll see below) with 7 people and two trucks (my flatbed and my 1/2 ton). Our protocol on busy roads was to park the flatbed facing into traffic, lights on, flashers on, safety LED flashers up high on, then cone off a buffer behind and in front, put two people with slow/stop signs just inside each cone zone, a person at the middle that directs traffic (everyone had radios on them), a driver for the flatbed (used to tamp in the patch) and shoveler. That's 7 people where the county had 2. We were dramatically safer. We could do that because we all volunteered.
That's a lot of man power for free, it's less risky, it still blows my mind that the county can't get behind that. Someone decided it made them look bad. Personally, I think not using that man power makes them look bad but what do I know?
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/17/mountain-vigilantes-t...
I tried to work with the county to make it official, the idea was to form a group of trained, careful people that would be to public works what the volunteer fire department is to Cal-Fire. Then we could be insured, etc.
The county wanted no part of it even though their budget, at the time, was about $1M/year for 600 miles of roads (that's pathetic and the roads show it. The road I'm on hasn't been paved or screened for decades and it's falling apart, just like many others).
I was hoping we could pioneer a model that other states/counties could emulate. Still am but don't know how to get there. We can bring way more people to the table than the county can. For example, they fill potholes with 2 people, one guy driving a pickup, one guy on the back shoveling patch. We did that (as you'll see below) with 7 people and two trucks (my flatbed and my 1/2 ton). Our protocol on busy roads was to park the flatbed facing into traffic, lights on, flashers on, safety LED flashers up high on, then cone off a buffer behind and in front, put two people with slow/stop signs just inside each cone zone, a person at the middle that directs traffic (everyone had radios on them), a driver for the flatbed (used to tamp in the patch) and shoveler. That's 7 people where the county had 2. We were dramatically safer. We could do that because we all volunteered.
That's a lot of man power for free, it's less risky, it still blows my mind that the county can't get behind that. Someone decided it made them look bad. Personally, I think not using that man power makes them look bad but what do I know?
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/17/mountain-vigilantes-t...
That's a cool idea, given the circumstances. It just blows my mind that it's required in a first-world country though...
In my city in Australia, the council just fixes potholes, generally within a week or two... A while back my mother made a complaint about a keep-left sign that blocked visibility on a corner, and they had it changed to lower it out of the way that week...
In my city in Australia, the council just fixes potholes, generally within a week or two... A while back my mother made a complaint about a keep-left sign that blocked visibility on a corner, and they had it changed to lower it out of the way that week...
Devon, county in England, has a similar problem. They look to be embracing getting local community to do the work, providing materials and who after training are then covered on liability.
https://new.devon.gov.uk/communities/casestudy/100000-fundin...
https://new.devon.gov.uk/communities/casestudy/100000-fundin...
That's great news, I'll pass that on to the county. Thank you!
Rather than getting defensive, municipalities should support these groups much in the same way they do volunteer fire departments.
For liability reasons, the municipalities would have to enforce certain rules and organized structure. Good luck selling that to anarchists...
Right, and have a strike (and possibly lawsuit) on their hands for promoting unpaid labor. And frankly, I wouldn't blame the strikers.
Are you familiar with the function of volunteer fire departments in the U.S.?
Not in the US, is there anything special them?
If not, I'd say they have a different pattern of activity than almost any other municipal work: plenty of downtime with unpredictable peaks that might require huge numbers of people at a very short notice. This makes hiring professionals a huge waste except in large cities, because they'll be twiddling their thumbs most of the time.
If not, I'd say they have a different pattern of activity than almost any other municipal work: plenty of downtime with unpredictable peaks that might require huge numbers of people at a very short notice. This makes hiring professionals a huge waste except in large cities, because they'll be twiddling their thumbs most of the time.
> This makes hiring professionals a huge waste except in large cities, because they'll be twiddling their thumbs most of the time.
Fire depts are not sitting around twiddling their thumbs. Plenty of work to be done. To respond to a lot more than just fires too FYI.
Volunteer firefighters are there to help out in areas not served by firefighters such as being out in a super rural area or when theres a big fire and there simply isn't enough staff, like wildfires. They're not volunteering to take away someones job. Some of them are just retired firefighters or veterans that want to look out for their community.
Fire depts are not sitting around twiddling their thumbs. Plenty of work to be done. To respond to a lot more than just fires too FYI.
Volunteer firefighters are there to help out in areas not served by firefighters such as being out in a super rural area or when theres a big fire and there simply isn't enough staff, like wildfires. They're not volunteering to take away someones job. Some of them are just retired firefighters or veterans that want to look out for their community.
not served by firefighters such as being out in a super rural area
Right. But why are those areas not served by a professional team? Because there isn't enough work to keep them busy.
Same thing with wildfires; you might need 20x more people during a wildfire than the rest of the time. It's not like you couldn't hire 20x professional firefighters to handle them - it's just that it would be a huge waste the rest of the time, as I said.
My point is that firefighting is not like pothole fixing - there's no such thing as a wildfire of potholes. Which is why municipalities supporting volunteer firefighters makes sense, whereas supporting volunteer pothole fixers doesn't, in my opinion.
Right. But why are those areas not served by a professional team? Because there isn't enough work to keep them busy.
Same thing with wildfires; you might need 20x more people during a wildfire than the rest of the time. It's not like you couldn't hire 20x professional firefighters to handle them - it's just that it would be a huge waste the rest of the time, as I said.
My point is that firefighting is not like pothole fixing - there's no such thing as a wildfire of potholes. Which is why municipalities supporting volunteer firefighters makes sense, whereas supporting volunteer pothole fixers doesn't, in my opinion.
I suggest you actually come out and visit us as you clearly have no idea what its like. We do get "wildfire of potholes" after every major rain season - exactly what the article was talking about. Last year was records for us.
Will people die if the potholes aren't handled in a few minutes? Do potholes spread to nearby homes?
No, you get a lot of potholes. That's annoying, but nobody will die if the fixers take a few days to fix them.
No, you get a lot of potholes. That's annoying, but nobody will die if the fixers take a few days to fix them.
Again you’re showing you don’t understand the problem here. It doesn’t take them a few days. It takes them years. But whatever. No point in arguing with someone that doesn’t live in the pnw
It takes them years because they don't have enough people. My only point is that they should hire more people rather than support volunteers as avoutthere suggested.
My knowledge of the pnw pothole situation is irrelevant to my point.
My knowledge of the pnw pothole situation is irrelevant to my point.
[deleted]
Its strikes me that these people don't know what capitalism is. I think they think that corporatism is capitalism.
In any case, you can't have an anarchist society ... its always going to turn into an anarcho-capitalist society. People are always going to join together into mutually beneficial joint-enterprises ... and they are going to want to share in the proceeds from such enterprises ... and that is what capitalism basically enables.
In any case, you can't have an anarchist society ... its always going to turn into an anarcho-capitalist society. People are always going to join together into mutually beneficial joint-enterprises ... and they are going to want to share in the proceeds from such enterprises ... and that is what capitalism basically enables.
>Its strikes me that these people don't know what capitalism is
In my experience Anarchists are some of the most well read community of political activists around. May I suggest that you don't know what capitalism is and should spend some time actually reading some theory? Or perhaps engage in conversation with some anarchists? I think you'd find their views and philosophy much deeper and valid than you've conceded in your post.
In my experience Anarchists are some of the most well read community of political activists around. May I suggest that you don't know what capitalism is and should spend some time actually reading some theory? Or perhaps engage in conversation with some anarchists? I think you'd find their views and philosophy much deeper and valid than you've conceded in your post.
Explain to me how anarchy doesn't immediately lead to anarcho-capitalism?
They only way it doesn't is if you define capitalism to be some sort of corporatism ... which means you aren't "well read" as you put it.
They only way it doesn't is if you define capitalism to be some sort of corporatism ... which means you aren't "well read" as you put it.
In your other comment you made this point
>What do you need to make a modern enterprise? You need tools and you need labor. Some people provide labor, and others provide the tools. Some people who can provide tools, don't necessarily want to provide labor. They are shareholders without being workers.
But the thing is, this only needs to exist this way in a capitalist society. In all your points, you seem to not grasp that the underlying economic system of an anarchist society would in no way resemble the current state of affairs.
In much the same way the economy under a feudalist society does not resemble a capitalist society, and yet fields were tilled and walls built without shareholders.
The fact is that if you abolish capital (by returning collective control over the means of production to the workers) there is no section of society, no "other that provides the tools". The people who provide the tools are other workers, working in other fields, and they supply the workers in the field which uses the tools with the tools. There is no unproductive segment of society such as there is today which lays claim to the wealth without doing any of the labour. This means that there cannot be the accumulation of wealth that we see today, as instead of being horded and spent on the whims of a few, it is immediately pumped back into society.
The state and capitalism are symbiotic. The state only exists to keep capitalist enterprise in check, that is why the state perform functions that we do not believe should be performed for profit (why so many countries have welfare systems, healthcare systems and militaries to maintain the states primacy).
Otherwise everything would be performed by private enterprise (i.e. your anarcho-capitalist ideal) which would very quickly lead to corporate feudalism and private armies.
There is no way for the state to not exist and capitalism to exist at the same time, and seeing as both structures are the root cause of many issues in society, the abolition of both is necessary through decentralization and worker led confederations of labor, rather than the current system of capitalist led governments and businesses.
>What do you need to make a modern enterprise? You need tools and you need labor. Some people provide labor, and others provide the tools. Some people who can provide tools, don't necessarily want to provide labor. They are shareholders without being workers.
But the thing is, this only needs to exist this way in a capitalist society. In all your points, you seem to not grasp that the underlying economic system of an anarchist society would in no way resemble the current state of affairs.
In much the same way the economy under a feudalist society does not resemble a capitalist society, and yet fields were tilled and walls built without shareholders.
The fact is that if you abolish capital (by returning collective control over the means of production to the workers) there is no section of society, no "other that provides the tools". The people who provide the tools are other workers, working in other fields, and they supply the workers in the field which uses the tools with the tools. There is no unproductive segment of society such as there is today which lays claim to the wealth without doing any of the labour. This means that there cannot be the accumulation of wealth that we see today, as instead of being horded and spent on the whims of a few, it is immediately pumped back into society.
The state and capitalism are symbiotic. The state only exists to keep capitalist enterprise in check, that is why the state perform functions that we do not believe should be performed for profit (why so many countries have welfare systems, healthcare systems and militaries to maintain the states primacy).
Otherwise everything would be performed by private enterprise (i.e. your anarcho-capitalist ideal) which would very quickly lead to corporate feudalism and private armies.
There is no way for the state to not exist and capitalism to exist at the same time, and seeing as both structures are the root cause of many issues in society, the abolition of both is necessary through decentralization and worker led confederations of labor, rather than the current system of capitalist led governments and businesses.
> The state only exists to keep capitalist enterprise in check.
John Locke would disagree. The state exists to protect the rights of people and the public good. "Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins."
John Locke would disagree. The state exists to protect the rights of people and the public good. "Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins."
The state exists in it's current form because we don't trust private enterprise to perform those functions, otherwise we would. So you're agreeing with me, although I could have phrased it better.
And we don't trust private enterprise for good reasons. They're known under many names - tragedy of commons, coordination problems, collective action problems. One possible solution for all those, towards which all societies in history gravitated so far, is the state.
Oh god, not this again.
You have such a simplistic understanding of economics for somebody who asks others to read and study.
Where do tools come from? Are they descending from heaven like magic? Tools are the product of someone’s labor. Why would mr A who built tool X give it to mr B for his enterprise unless he gets some return?
Or do you imagine a world in which there is no shortage of tools? In that case just imagine a world where there is no shortage of anything and we can dispense with human labor altogether.
Anarchism is very possible when robots do everything. But not short of that.
Also, you should study why the anarchists ultimately lost and were butchered by the communists after the tsar’s regime was toppled in Russia.
You have such a simplistic understanding of economics for somebody who asks others to read and study.
Where do tools come from? Are they descending from heaven like magic? Tools are the product of someone’s labor. Why would mr A who built tool X give it to mr B for his enterprise unless he gets some return?
Or do you imagine a world in which there is no shortage of tools? In that case just imagine a world where there is no shortage of anything and we can dispense with human labor altogether.
Anarchism is very possible when robots do everything. But not short of that.
Also, you should study why the anarchists ultimately lost and were butchered by the communists after the tsar’s regime was toppled in Russia.
You already answered your own question as to why having this argument with an 'anarchist' is a waste of time. By redefining capitalism to be a specific case of oligarchic kleptocracy (the very non free market system of corporate welfare we currently have in america) they can always avoid the interesting points of the argument.
As an aside, as I read this, you are not advocating for anarcho-capitalism, just pointing out where this scenario ends, but I don't think the people arguing you below understand that.
The real winner is the person who understands both sides and can pick out which people aren't capable of having an intellectually honest conversation and avoiding them.
As an aside, as I read this, you are not advocating for anarcho-capitalism, just pointing out where this scenario ends, but I don't think the people arguing you below understand that.
The real winner is the person who understands both sides and can pick out which people aren't capable of having an intellectually honest conversation and avoiding them.
I would recommend less time studying theory and more time studying history.
Communism is great in theory but no matter how well read I am on Marx, Lenin, or Mao it won’t make communism work any better historically.
Communism is great in theory but no matter how well read I am on Marx, Lenin, or Mao it won’t make communism work any better historically.
Apart from Marx not one of those individuals has made any positive contribution to anarcho-communism, so I don't see your point.
Tell me your thoughts on Revolutionary Catalonia, or the Free Territory of Ukraine? Or the EZLN in Chiapas?
You're so keen to claim a complete understanding of Communist History, please explain these attempts.
Tell me your thoughts on Revolutionary Catalonia, or the Free Territory of Ukraine? Or the EZLN in Chiapas?
You're so keen to claim a complete understanding of Communist History, please explain these attempts.
Yeah, some how I knew you’d go there.
When you hold up small regions that survived for a short time (about 3 years), created nothing, then were defeated, I’m not sure you’re going to win against a system that created modern North America from nothing and has lasted over 200 years.
Anarchism is an abstract idea that has never worked, which is why all your examples are of anarchists that work with collectivist, squarely against their individualist ideals.
When you hold up small regions that survived for a short time (about 3 years), created nothing, then were defeated, I’m not sure you’re going to win against a system that created modern North America from nothing and has lasted over 200 years.
Anarchism is an abstract idea that has never worked, which is why all your examples are of anarchists that work with collectivist, squarely against their individualist ideals.
Not essentially, one can have worker cooperatives, capitalistic structures entitles profits to a few shareholders whereas the rest are workers.
Worker cooperative (can be seen in communistic/socialistic/anarchist/democratic light) are where everyone has shares and ownership of the cooperative.
Worker cooperative (can be seen in communistic/socialistic/anarchist/democratic light) are where everyone has shares and ownership of the cooperative.
What is a shareholder? Have you ever thought about it?
What do you need to make a modern enterprise? You need tools and you need labor. Some people provide labor, and others provide the tools. Some people who can provide tools, don't necessarily want to provide labor. They are shareholders without being workers.
If all the workers bring their own tools, then the enterprise can be 100% worker owned. If some workers need someone else to provide tools, they need some outside capital. That outside capital is basically outside people providing tools in exchange for some ownership in the enterprise.
As enterprises become more complex, you may need more and more complicated and expensive tools ... and the people who provide the labor and the people who provide the tools can become highly specialized.
There you go ... shareholder capitalism again.
What do you need to make a modern enterprise? You need tools and you need labor. Some people provide labor, and others provide the tools. Some people who can provide tools, don't necessarily want to provide labor. They are shareholders without being workers.
If all the workers bring their own tools, then the enterprise can be 100% worker owned. If some workers need someone else to provide tools, they need some outside capital. That outside capital is basically outside people providing tools in exchange for some ownership in the enterprise.
As enterprises become more complex, you may need more and more complicated and expensive tools ... and the people who provide the labor and the people who provide the tools can become highly specialized.
There you go ... shareholder capitalism again.
You have precisely identified half the problem that anarcho-syndicalists (the Chomsky type) see with our economic system: that some people want to provide capital to an enterprise in exchange for ownership. The other half of the problem is that as markets work (relative scarcity of capital vs labor) the people who provide the capital end up collecting most of the profits of the enterprise. Which has resulted in the enormous wealth inequalities of our times.
The anarcho-syndicalist solution is simple. If an enterprise is bigger than say 30 people, by law you cannot gain ownership of it by providing capital. In fact, the shareholding system is rather simple. If there are N people who provide labor to the enterprise, then each of them get roughly 1/Nth ownership of the enterprise. Sure, people doing more technical or more difficult work might receive a bigger salary than people doing more manual labor but it will be very difficult for anyone to amass relative massive wealth.
Sure, in such a economic system, collecting capital will be hard to enterprises. "Growth" might slow down etc etc, but at least people will be fairly reimbursed for their labor.
The anarcho-syndicalist solution is simple. If an enterprise is bigger than say 30 people, by law you cannot gain ownership of it by providing capital. In fact, the shareholding system is rather simple. If there are N people who provide labor to the enterprise, then each of them get roughly 1/Nth ownership of the enterprise. Sure, people doing more technical or more difficult work might receive a bigger salary than people doing more manual labor but it will be very difficult for anyone to amass relative massive wealth.
Sure, in such a economic system, collecting capital will be hard to enterprises. "Growth" might slow down etc etc, but at least people will be fairly reimbursed for their labor.
> by law you cannot gain ownership of it by providing capital
How do you stop (say) a hundred people getting together and agreeing to do just that, without having a state? Most people prefer job security rather than part ownership (revealed preference).
How do you stop (say) a hundred people getting together and agreeing to do just that, without having a state? Most people prefer job security rather than part ownership (revealed preference).
I was waiting for this response. Anarcho-syndicalists are not revolutionaries. They don't want to upend the entire system in one go, only make simple changes that get them what they want. So really, anarcho-syndicalists are (temporarily) happy with a democratic system, with a state that enforces laws through standard methods (police etc). Once this particular change has been made they will go after other unreasonable hierarchy [1] besides wealth-inequality and try to come up with a solution for them.
This methodology is not very different from that of socialist democracies, who very slowly over decades have expanded the network of protections and services offered by the state, in service of their goal of a benevolent democratic state that takes care of all its citizens.
[1] Remember, anarchists (Chomsky style at least) want a society free of unreasonable hierarchies - where "unreasonable" is up for debate.
This methodology is not very different from that of socialist democracies, who very slowly over decades have expanded the network of protections and services offered by the state, in service of their goal of a benevolent democratic state that takes care of all its citizens.
[1] Remember, anarchists (Chomsky style at least) want a society free of unreasonable hierarchies - where "unreasonable" is up for debate.
So, they will forcefully prevent people from doing what they want with their property, even when that doesn't affect others.
This differs from what we have today how?
This differs from what we have today how?
I don't think I fully understand what you mean. But I will take your comment literally and try to answer. I apologize if I misunderstood.
I think every politico-economic system stops people from doing certain things - that is an inevitable consequence if a group of people with possibly conflicting goals want to cooperate for mutual benefit. The whole debate between different ideologies is what to stop people from and why.
As I said anarcho-syndicalists are evolutionaries who want to start by making one simple change to our current democratic-capitalist systems - nerf the power of capital to further gain wealth (what). And they want to do this to reduce income inequality in society (why).
This proposal changes our current systems in just this way. Its not intending to change the fundamental framework of law, order, economy, politics; just merely changing some laws and economic subsystems of of current framework. Anarcho-syndicalists are not rosy-eyed people that believe in the fundamental goodness of people - but realists who want to improve society through standard democratic ways.
I hope I answered your question; if not I would happy if you explained a bit more.
I think every politico-economic system stops people from doing certain things - that is an inevitable consequence if a group of people with possibly conflicting goals want to cooperate for mutual benefit. The whole debate between different ideologies is what to stop people from and why.
As I said anarcho-syndicalists are evolutionaries who want to start by making one simple change to our current democratic-capitalist systems - nerf the power of capital to further gain wealth (what). And they want to do this to reduce income inequality in society (why).
This proposal changes our current systems in just this way. Its not intending to change the fundamental framework of law, order, economy, politics; just merely changing some laws and economic subsystems of of current framework. Anarcho-syndicalists are not rosy-eyed people that believe in the fundamental goodness of people - but realists who want to improve society through standard democratic ways.
I hope I answered your question; if not I would happy if you explained a bit more.
I was trying to understand the reason for the word "anarchist" in there. What you described can be equally applied to most liberals. Indeed, Bernie Sanders would verbally agree with impoverishing countries (because that's what preventing capital from growing means), and I don't believe he has ever claimed to be an anarchist.
Anyway, I understand your position and I'm just quibbling about terminology, so I believe I'll stop here.
Anyway, I understand your position and I'm just quibbling about terminology, so I believe I'll stop here.
Again this depends, you're more describing corporate capitalism, most small businesses don't go through these processes and might become worker coops to survive if can't pay wages or if nobody good enough to take over even if its a profitable and expanding small chain.(speak from personal experience)
Its pretty oversimplized to describe the capital acquistion process, small businesses can last 20 or 30 years without any actual outside investment. Most small businesses dont become corporations that require extensive outside investment because its hard, thus your case is only certain if every small business becomes a corporation through outside investment but it doesnt occur everytime and is only an edge case.
Its pretty oversimplized to describe the capital acquistion process, small businesses can last 20 or 30 years without any actual outside investment. Most small businesses dont become corporations that require extensive outside investment because its hard, thus your case is only certain if every small business becomes a corporation through outside investment but it doesnt occur everytime and is only an edge case.
A worker cooperative cannot be anarchist as it's already a version of a state.
> That's not real capitalism, that's corporatism
I'm guessing if someone said to you "USSR and China are not real socialism/communism", you would insist they are wrong?
I'm guessing if someone said to you "USSR and China are not real socialism/communism", you would insist they are wrong?
OP is right, that's not capitalism and moreso that is far from the liberal concept of free market capitalism. I don'k know why you assumed that bringing up china or the soviet union would changr that fact, particularly in the form of an ad hominem.
> I don'k know why you assumed that bringing up china or the soviet union would changr that fact
That's a dishonest interpretation of my comment, and in fact I think you know exactly why I brought it up. OP gets to pick and choose which capitalisms are "true capitalism", but leftists are almost always denied the right to point out basic historic facts, such as maybe Stalin killed people because he was a paranoid dictator being blacklisted by all Western powers, rather than some non-sequitor about communism supernaturally compelling him to.
Not an ad hominem, just genuinely curious, does he literally think "not all capitalisms are true capitalism" then also claim "all socialisms are true socialisms" then not see any irony?
That's a dishonest interpretation of my comment, and in fact I think you know exactly why I brought it up. OP gets to pick and choose which capitalisms are "true capitalism", but leftists are almost always denied the right to point out basic historic facts, such as maybe Stalin killed people because he was a paranoid dictator being blacklisted by all Western powers, rather than some non-sequitor about communism supernaturally compelling him to.
Not an ad hominem, just genuinely curious, does he literally think "not all capitalisms are true capitalism" then also claim "all socialisms are true socialisms" then not see any irony?
[deleted]
There's this amazing story by 99% invisible about Guerrilla Public Service which I find both fascinating and funny at the same time.
I highly recommend that episode: http://pca.st/YLdD
I highly recommend that episode: http://pca.st/YLdD
We could use these guys in our city. Power to the people.
The city’s approach is “see no evil” until you submit a see click fix ticket.
But you need to submit them for individual holes. My street looks like a lunar landscape, but the crew will show up and fix the single hole pictured in the ticket.
The city’s approach is “see no evil” until you submit a see click fix ticket.
But you need to submit them for individual holes. My street looks like a lunar landscape, but the crew will show up and fix the single hole pictured in the ticket.
I believe their point is that you should be that person for your city, not them...
In any case: fixing potholes is just about the least inefficient government service possible: it's a guy/gal making $x per hour, plus some extremely commoditised materials.
Meaning: it's extremely hard for anybody to screw this up. If your city isn't fixing potholes to your liking, it is almost guaranteed to be the result of a general lack of funds. With the perennial bogeyman of "wasteful spending", governments in the US have simply been starved of resources.
The behaviour you're describing makes perfect sense in this situation: moving on to the next pothole that someone complained about is simple prioritisation, even if it's slightly less efficient long-term to drive a block or two for every pothole instead of fixing a whole street at once.
In any case: fixing potholes is just about the least inefficient government service possible: it's a guy/gal making $x per hour, plus some extremely commoditised materials.
Meaning: it's extremely hard for anybody to screw this up. If your city isn't fixing potholes to your liking, it is almost guaranteed to be the result of a general lack of funds. With the perennial bogeyman of "wasteful spending", governments in the US have simply been starved of resources.
The behaviour you're describing makes perfect sense in this situation: moving on to the next pothole that someone complained about is simple prioritisation, even if it's slightly less efficient long-term to drive a block or two for every pothole instead of fixing a whole street at once.
If your city isn't fixing potholes to your liking, it is almost guaranteed to be the result of a general lack of funds.
Have you ever lived in a city? I cannot reconcile this proposition with my understanding of any municipal situation I have ever seen. Cities certainly have enough money to patch potholes. They already have a compactor and a dump truck, and asphalt is cheap. If any city is not fixing potholes, it is a question of priorities. There is probably some byzantine explanation of e.g. why potholes on this street are fixed while those on some other are not, but that can't be simplified to "we don't have enough money".
Have you ever lived in a city? I cannot reconcile this proposition with my understanding of any municipal situation I have ever seen. Cities certainly have enough money to patch potholes. They already have a compactor and a dump truck, and asphalt is cheap. If any city is not fixing potholes, it is a question of priorities. There is probably some byzantine explanation of e.g. why potholes on this street are fixed while those on some other are not, but that can't be simplified to "we don't have enough money".
That’s why I’d like some anarchist pothole fillers.
The act of filling a whole with tarred stone is trivial, managing a municipal government so that the guy is filling a hole instead of doing something less productive (like driving a truck around looking for leaf bags in February, for example) is filling holes is not.
The act of filling a whole with tarred stone is trivial, managing a municipal government so that the guy is filling a hole instead of doing something less productive (like driving a truck around looking for leaf bags in February, for example) is filling holes is not.
I've seen the converse by using grafitti and drawing obnoxious penises around potholes.
Sure, it defaces public property, but it's with the goal that the potholes will be taken care of quicker. Unsure how true that is in practice.
Sure, it defaces public property, but it's with the goal that the potholes will be taken care of quicker. Unsure how true that is in practice.
They mentioned that in the article and link to another article about this.
SFMTrA is a similar group that adds protection for SF bike lanes when the city can't be bothered to do it:
https://twitter.com/sfmtra
https://twitter.com/sfmtra
Back in my day, Anarchists destroyed public property, not fix it! Kidding aside, this is pretty cool, but really sad that the city can't somehow fix them before property damage or someone gets hurt.
The winter of 2016/2017 was really bad here in Portland and caused an unbelievable amount of damage to our roads. Whole portions of streets came up from the freeze/thaw. It was nuts and they're STILL in the process of fixing them, not that the roads in Portland proper were ever that great in the first place.
this seems to be from 2017. do they still mend the potholes?
It would be far worse if they not only fixed the pothole, but then made a new pothole near the house of a government official.
Wait, are these guys Individualism or Collectivism Anarchists?
Rewind 2000 years...
Wait, are these guys the People's Judean Front or the People's Front of Judea?
Rewind 2000 years...
Wait, are these guys the People's Judean Front or the People's Front of Judea?
(2017)
Most people don't even shoulder their share of household chores, even though fair sharing is enforced by informal yet powerful social mechanisms. So I'm not optimistic regarding widespread peaceful anarchy for services.
Fixing potholes yourself also takes a (few million) step(s) backward in time: it's the bartering of public service, forgoing the awesome benefits of specialisation and cooperation.
But you know where this sort of anarchy basically works: taxes! Almost all people send in their tax returns without a fuzz. It's almost as if they agree that everyone should chip in for shared endeavours, and that money is an excellent medium for coordinating it all.
(yeah, I know there's the threat of criminal law lurking if you don't pay your taxes. But taxes are probably the world's most universal policy, and only a select few lunatics and presidents seem not to get the concept)
Fixing potholes yourself also takes a (few million) step(s) backward in time: it's the bartering of public service, forgoing the awesome benefits of specialisation and cooperation.
But you know where this sort of anarchy basically works: taxes! Almost all people send in their tax returns without a fuzz. It's almost as if they agree that everyone should chip in for shared endeavours, and that money is an excellent medium for coordinating it all.
(yeah, I know there's the threat of criminal law lurking if you don't pay your taxes. But taxes are probably the world's most universal policy, and only a select few lunatics and presidents seem not to get the concept)
Taxes enforced by the state are the absolute antithesis of anarchy. The difference between coercion and voluntary organization is profound.
While it can be argued that this takes us some steps backward in time, this is not barter, it's gift economy. Barter never existed outside some few events and capitalist ideologist imagination ;-).
Are they suggesting that the city can be held liable when a pothole they _haven't_ fixed jacks up my car or its tires? I've not really heard of that working in practice. From Portland's own website [0]:
> Most pothole claims are not paid.
Yea, figures - I think I'll take my chances with the anarchist-repaired potholes.
[0] https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bibs/article/629953