Wee bit hard to imagine chattel slavery existing without a gigantic state apparatus making that happen, but sure, go off.
(In case it’s not clear, I’m assuming you’re referencing the American South, and any discussion of what occurred/occurs there cannot be disentangled from the history of state-driven slavery whatsoever, it is all fundamentally and inextricably the same interdependent thing)
Chattel slavery sure, but slavery in general predates the existence of nation states by centuries. That is beside the point. While lynching has become associated with chattel slavery, it refers to any extrajudicial vigilante execution. The term “Lynching” was coined during the American revolution after extrajudicial corporal punishment or killing of British Loyalists. It was later used quite a bit against Chinese and Mexicans in the American West. Current racial associations arose after the Civil War. (Justifiably so. I’m certainly not arguing that African Americans didn’t get the worst of it.)
Fair enough, if the original assertion above is along the lines of “groups thinking for themselves also leads to mob violence like lynching”, no real disagreement. But it sounds like you’re saying “and that’s why hierarchical systems are necessary”, or “better”, or something.
I just don’t find it very compelling to point out mob violence, when comparing it with the brutality enacted against our scapegoats today done with the full might of the state. Which is what your original comment seemed to do, yeah?
We have genocides, we have a teeming for-profit prison system, we have generations of families and people broken beyond repair from targeted attacks on their communities.
But small groups also do the immoral mob violence thing. And it can get really fucked up, yep. Okay? To me, pointing it out just serves to highlight how hierarchical systems are so much better at systematizing that human tendency toward scapegoating and violence.
I’m not going to pretend I don’t think some sort of hierarchical system is most effective for minimizing instances of mob rule. I think it’s fair to say it is an inevitability that sometimes the majority will want something that is very bad for a minority or an individual.
I have a hard time thinking of a non-hierarchical method of preventing the tyranny of the majority. For example, what happens when a To Kill A Mockingbird type situation happens where someone is falsely accused of a heinous crime and the public wants blood? There won’t always be an Atticus Finch in reality to persuade people to choose logic over emotion.
I’m pretty uneasy about those kinds of questions myself. I think caring about ideals of justice and fairness inherently carries some amount of “…so your rules should be like my rules” along with it, and how could it not? Self-determination allows choosing rules and behaviors I think are bad, including horrifically bad.
Nonetheless. Me imposing my judgment and values on what people should do, shares enough of the problems with some faraway monolithic state doing so, that I probably just shouldn’t.
And again, hypothetical harms from self determination vs known really horrific crimes at extreme scales, many done for fairly shallow and otherwise heinous goals, to boot. I understand unease, I don’t understand defending present systems against even just the idea of trying some better ways.
If everyone was like you and me, anarchy would work perfectly fine as a social system. I don’t want to control anyone and I don’t care how anyone lives their life as long as it doesn’t directly harm me. But rules aren’t developed for reasonable people, but because of unreasonable people. Ultimately I’m more afraid of unreasonable people with no restrictions than I am of the present system.
But communities of people naturally, inevitably, develop rules to deal with unreasonable people.
In a way you’re just pointing out - “notice how some people are bad and must be controlled” (yes, clearly) and then arriving at “so the way we’re doing it now is better than what I’m imagining anarchists are suggesting”.
What I’m trying (probably failing) to say clearly is that - for me, the fundamental principle of *an-*archism - anti-hierarchical thinking - revolves around people in their own communities knowing what’s best for them. As an idea. As opposed to just gigantic new feudalism + boundlessly scary tech - knowing what’s best for folks. Which we have.
The launch into “but what if everyone can just do what they want” is…well, it’s you not thinking very hard. It’s not what I mean, I can’t speak for anyone else, but fairly sure it’s not what others mean either.
I absolutely get that communities will develop their own rules. I just don’t see a third option besides mob violence or creating a hierarchy. Either everyone collectively metes out justice, or you make justice someone’s job which creates a hierarchy of control. Maybe that’s too simplistic thinking?
What we have has big big problems, no doubt. Getting to a better place just takes so many big changes, I have a hard time visualizing getting from A to B.
Lynchings are also what happens when people learn to speak and act for themselves.
Wee bit hard to imagine chattel slavery existing without a gigantic state apparatus making that happen, but sure, go off.
(In case it’s not clear, I’m assuming you’re referencing the American South, and any discussion of what occurred/occurs there cannot be disentangled from the history of state-driven slavery whatsoever, it is all fundamentally and inextricably the same interdependent thing)
Chattel slavery sure, but slavery in general predates the existence of nation states by centuries. That is beside the point. While lynching has become associated with chattel slavery, it refers to any extrajudicial vigilante execution. The term “Lynching” was coined during the American revolution after extrajudicial corporal punishment or killing of British Loyalists. It was later used quite a bit against Chinese and Mexicans in the American West. Current racial associations arose after the Civil War. (Justifiably so. I’m certainly not arguing that African Americans didn’t get the worst of it.)
Fair enough, if the original assertion above is along the lines of “groups thinking for themselves also leads to mob violence like lynching”, no real disagreement. But it sounds like you’re saying “and that’s why hierarchical systems are necessary”, or “better”, or something.
I just don’t find it very compelling to point out mob violence, when comparing it with the brutality enacted against our scapegoats today done with the full might of the state. Which is what your original comment seemed to do, yeah?
We have genocides, we have a teeming for-profit prison system, we have generations of families and people broken beyond repair from targeted attacks on their communities.
But small groups also do the immoral mob violence thing. And it can get really fucked up, yep. Okay? To me, pointing it out just serves to highlight how hierarchical systems are so much better at systematizing that human tendency toward scapegoating and violence.
I’m not going to pretend I don’t think some sort of hierarchical system is most effective for minimizing instances of mob rule. I think it’s fair to say it is an inevitability that sometimes the majority will want something that is very bad for a minority or an individual.
I have a hard time thinking of a non-hierarchical method of preventing the tyranny of the majority. For example, what happens when a To Kill A Mockingbird type situation happens where someone is falsely accused of a heinous crime and the public wants blood? There won’t always be an Atticus Finch in reality to persuade people to choose logic over emotion.
Andrewism recently wrote a article addressing your concern
Interesting! I’ll check it out. Thanks
You are welcome :>
I’m pretty uneasy about those kinds of questions myself. I think caring about ideals of justice and fairness inherently carries some amount of “…so your rules should be like my rules” along with it, and how could it not? Self-determination allows choosing rules and behaviors I think are bad, including horrifically bad.
Nonetheless. Me imposing my judgment and values on what people should do, shares enough of the problems with some faraway monolithic state doing so, that I probably just shouldn’t.
And again, hypothetical harms from self determination vs known really horrific crimes at extreme scales, many done for fairly shallow and otherwise heinous goals, to boot. I understand unease, I don’t understand defending present systems against even just the idea of trying some better ways.
It sounds like we disagree about that.
If everyone was like you and me, anarchy would work perfectly fine as a social system. I don’t want to control anyone and I don’t care how anyone lives their life as long as it doesn’t directly harm me. But rules aren’t developed for reasonable people, but because of unreasonable people. Ultimately I’m more afraid of unreasonable people with no restrictions than I am of the present system.
But communities of people naturally, inevitably, develop rules to deal with unreasonable people.
In a way you’re just pointing out - “notice how some people are bad and must be controlled” (yes, clearly) and then arriving at “so the way we’re doing it now is better than what I’m imagining anarchists are suggesting”.
What I’m trying (probably failing) to say clearly is that - for me, the fundamental principle of *an-*archism - anti-hierarchical thinking - revolves around people in their own communities knowing what’s best for them. As an idea. As opposed to just gigantic new feudalism + boundlessly scary tech - knowing what’s best for folks. Which we have.
The launch into “but what if everyone can just do what they want” is…well, it’s you not thinking very hard. It’s not what I mean, I can’t speak for anyone else, but fairly sure it’s not what others mean either.
I absolutely get that communities will develop their own rules. I just don’t see a third option besides mob violence or creating a hierarchy. Either everyone collectively metes out justice, or you make justice someone’s job which creates a hierarchy of control. Maybe that’s too simplistic thinking?
What we have has big big problems, no doubt. Getting to a better place just takes so many big changes, I have a hard time visualizing getting from A to B.
Hierarchies incentivize spreading hate. Divide and conquer is one of the oldest tactics rulers use.
Zero argument from me on that one.
You say that like any billionaire has treated you like a human.
It’s not just billionaires that would fall to mob justice.
Mobs tend to kill first and ask questions later. Think of how many black people were killed for imagined crimes.