I was being pithy. I think it’s a bit absurd to say that corruption is impossible under anarchism because no one has power.
Power disparity is an unavoidable fact in every society, no matter the structure (or lack thereof). Some will be popular and some unpopular. Some will be physically strong and others physically weak. Some will seek to build up community and some will seek to tear it down.
And any amount of power disparity is prone to corruption. Surely I don’t need to point out examples of an absolute asshole getting popular and then using that popularity to take advantage of or hurt other people.
Anarchism, if it has one thing going for it, is that these problems tend to stay fairly local. But it also doesn’t give any solutions to these problems other than lynchmobs. So its a bit of a tradeoff. But it absolutely isn’t immune from corruption.
Well, technically it is immune to corruption. It isn’t immune to people being terrible and exploitative, but that’s technically not corruption. To be corrupt, you’d have to be given legitimate power, and then misuse it. The popular asshole created their power from scratch.
A system without legitimized power isn’t immune to bad people creating power, but it is technically immune to corruption since there’s nothing to corrupt.
Anarchism is not the lack of government. It’s the lack of hierarchy. There can (and practically must) still be government and cooperation. Anarchism is not chaos, like the media portrays it.
There’s a lot of resources online if you want to learn more.
I didn’t find anarchic rhetoric to be very compelling because it seems like endless layers of “Actually,”, not unlike libertarianism. We wind up reinventing the thing discarded.
I’m a systems guy. When I have conversations with politically idealistic individuals, I ask them questions about their proposed system. Every anarchist I talk to at length about infrastructure and industry either refuses to imagine that people wouldn’t spontaneously cooperate out of the goodness of their hearts, or winds up reinventing hierarchies. But different hierarchies, which aren’t the same things for some reason.
I’m also a systems guy. It isn’t that people will spontaneously cooperate and just build roads or whatever. It’s about creating systems that can solve these problems, but systems that listen to everyone’s voices. Yes, there will be disagreement on some things, but the solution with the most agreement will be enacted.
Also yes, not everyone can be involved in everything, so you need groups in charge of certain tasks. However, again, this does not need to be hierarchical. It just needs to be cooperative. Those groups will handle those tasks, and they’re accountable to the people. They aren’t above them. They’re just filling a role for now, as everyone is also doing.
I thought the same thing as you about anarchism for a while too. I thought it seemed stupid and that it couldn’t work, and they’re just reinventing the same things with different names. I don’t believe that anymore though. It turns out the structures we have in place lead us to a very poor understanding of alternative systems of governance, for some very mystifying reason.
The difficulty isn’t in the cooperation part. It’s with the not having an authority. Some corrupt assholes will always try to take charge and be an authority.
I am an anarchist, but I am also not naive. The only way an anarchist utopia could ever truly exist is if people were completely free of greed and desire to have power over others. Which is extremely unlikely.
Those countries are headed towards that circus at varying paces, so that argument doesn’t work anymore. I mean Germany? France? Sweden? Britain? Italy?
The problem with capitalism in a representative democracy is that is almost impossible to maintain a perfectly sized government. If the government asks for too many taxes (on an extreme level) etc the market doesn’t function anymore. The “free market” needs some level of class difference to make profit attractive and keep people committed to their jobs. Because of these differences class conflict is created and through privately owned newspapers, corruption and short term economic gains regulation’s get liberalized. This results in wealth accumulation, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This then leads to the social and economic conditions that allow for the rise of the populist right.
As a European I can currently see this happening in all countries to which I pay attention (namely Germany, Netherlands and Britain).
almost impossible to maintain a perfectly sized government
yep. while that’s true, i can’t think of a valid argument against some regulating body that protects all the people, which, in america, has been somehow defined as communism by the corrupt upper crust
Yes, and that’s capitalism. The regulations are antithetical to capitalism, but they’re also the only thing keeping us slightly safe from it. Yes, making capitalism less capitalist makes it a lot better. We can have a better system that’s just better, with the people that exist.
Wrong, a market can only be free if it’s regulated, example: I have a competing factory up river from you and we both need clean water to operate, I output toxic chemicals into the water as a result of my operations making your business impossible.
You have to close your business and I get to set the price however I want without competition, in this example the lack of regulations create a less free market.
In practice, governments usually intervene to reduce externalities such as greenhouse gas emissions;
An absence of any of the conditions of perfect competition is considered a market failure. Regulatory intervention may provide a substitute force to counter a market failure, which leads some economists to believe that some forms of market regulation may be better than an unregulated market at providing a free market.
Capitalism grantees they rise to power.
it sure does with small government.
remember there are countries that enjoy capitalism without the 5 ring circus shitshow we have going on in the states
Give Europe a bit more time. They’ll get there.
So far, but corruption is always the end result.
i’m not trying to simp for capitalism, but corruption can and does happen under any system
Anarchy. Can’t be corrupt if nobody has power. 😤
Roving bands of bandits would disagree.
Sir this is not a video game.
I was being pithy. I think it’s a bit absurd to say that corruption is impossible under anarchism because no one has power.
Power disparity is an unavoidable fact in every society, no matter the structure (or lack thereof). Some will be popular and some unpopular. Some will be physically strong and others physically weak. Some will seek to build up community and some will seek to tear it down.
And any amount of power disparity is prone to corruption. Surely I don’t need to point out examples of an absolute asshole getting popular and then using that popularity to take advantage of or hurt other people.
Anarchism, if it has one thing going for it, is that these problems tend to stay fairly local. But it also doesn’t give any solutions to these problems other than lynchmobs. So its a bit of a tradeoff. But it absolutely isn’t immune from corruption.
Well, technically it is immune to corruption. It isn’t immune to people being terrible and exploitative, but that’s technically not corruption. To be corrupt, you’d have to be given legitimate power, and then misuse it. The popular asshole created their power from scratch.
A system without legitimized power isn’t immune to bad people creating power, but it is technically immune to corruption since there’s nothing to corrupt.
But I like roads and hospitals and fire stations and no purge.
Anarchism is not the lack of government. It’s the lack of hierarchy. There can (and practically must) still be government and cooperation. Anarchism is not chaos, like the media portrays it.
There’s a lot of resources online if you want to learn more.
I didn’t find anarchic rhetoric to be very compelling because it seems like endless layers of “Actually,”, not unlike libertarianism. We wind up reinventing the thing discarded.
I’m a systems guy. When I have conversations with politically idealistic individuals, I ask them questions about their proposed system. Every anarchist I talk to at length about infrastructure and industry either refuses to imagine that people wouldn’t spontaneously cooperate out of the goodness of their hearts, or winds up reinventing hierarchies. But different hierarchies, which aren’t the same things for some reason.
I’m also a systems guy. It isn’t that people will spontaneously cooperate and just build roads or whatever. It’s about creating systems that can solve these problems, but systems that listen to everyone’s voices. Yes, there will be disagreement on some things, but the solution with the most agreement will be enacted.
Also yes, not everyone can be involved in everything, so you need groups in charge of certain tasks. However, again, this does not need to be hierarchical. It just needs to be cooperative. Those groups will handle those tasks, and they’re accountable to the people. They aren’t above them. They’re just filling a role for now, as everyone is also doing.
I thought the same thing as you about anarchism for a while too. I thought it seemed stupid and that it couldn’t work, and they’re just reinventing the same things with different names. I don’t believe that anymore though. It turns out the structures we have in place lead us to a very poor understanding of alternative systems of governance, for some very mystifying reason.
Cooperation can still exist without authority.
The difficulty isn’t in the cooperation part. It’s with the not having an authority. Some corrupt assholes will always try to take charge and be an authority.
I feel like the logical endpoint of “corruption in a system of anarchy” then is just bandit gangs.
I have a hard time saying those are worse for society than rich capitalists these days. But they’re not good.
I am an anarchist, but I am also not naive. The only way an anarchist utopia could ever truly exist is if people were completely free of greed and desire to have power over others. Which is extremely unlikely.
That doesn’t mean I don’t want it, tho. 😔
Those countries are headed towards that circus at varying paces, so that argument doesn’t work anymore. I mean Germany? France? Sweden? Britain? Italy?
The problem with capitalism in a representative democracy is that is almost impossible to maintain a perfectly sized government. If the government asks for too many taxes (on an extreme level) etc the market doesn’t function anymore. The “free market” needs some level of class difference to make profit attractive and keep people committed to their jobs. Because of these differences class conflict is created and through privately owned newspapers, corruption and short term economic gains regulation’s get liberalized. This results in wealth accumulation, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This then leads to the social and economic conditions that allow for the rise of the populist right.
As a European I can currently see this happening in all countries to which I pay attention (namely Germany, Netherlands and Britain).
yep. while that’s true, i can’t think of a valid argument against some regulating body that protects all the people, which, in america, has been somehow defined as communism by the corrupt upper crust
if there is hope, it lies in the proles
They always do, regardless of the economic system.
I would not describe any communist or socialist leader as a Christian Fascist Oligarch.
Usually they’re just regular old Fascist Oligarchs
Exactly
systematic removal of regulations and consequences has enabled greedy corporate dickbacks to sieze power.
systems are made of people. To make a better system, you need better people.
Yes, and that’s capitalism. The regulations are antithetical to capitalism, but they’re also the only thing keeping us slightly safe from it. Yes, making capitalism less capitalist makes it a lot better. We can have a better system that’s just better, with the people that exist.
I think a lot of people misunderstand capitalism in the same way other people misunderstand communism.
What you said is absolutely wrong, regulations are not antiethical in capitalism, they are necessary for the free market to remain free.
The system we see today is a corruption of capitalism the same way Stalinism is a corruption of Communism
A regulated market is by definition not a free market.
Wrong, a market can only be free if it’s regulated, example: I have a competing factory up river from you and we both need clean water to operate, I output toxic chemicals into the water as a result of my operations making your business impossible.
You have to close your business and I get to set the price however I want without competition, in this example the lack of regulations create a less free market.
Here’s the definition
From the link you posted
The Supreme Court specifically, they gave US citizens united, and then unlimited executive power. Now we’re fucked being most hope.
The purpose of a system is what it does.