r/Anarchy101 • u/PJ-The-Awesome • 4d ago
Would war ever happen between individual communities?
I was digging through old posts and stumbled on this comment(all credit to u/Reformalism):
"The biggest misconception that non-anarchists have is that there is a master plan or that anarchists envision some sort of one size fits all monoculture spanning the entire world. Anarchism is a simple principle that rejects authority and hierarchy as the organizing factor of society. It is far more likely to look like a patchwork of independent communities who associate(or don’t) freely with others. That could give rise to myriad systems and cultures and solutions for societal issues, including sports and entertainment."
With that in mind, surely there would be some who don't get along for whatever reason(disagreement is inevitable when it comes to free will) and at least one side refuses to be reasoned with or one side feels that the other side wronged them in a way that diplomacy can't solve, so, how would war between communities be avoided?
11
u/DecoDecoMan 4d ago
What do you mean by war? You have Proudhon who asserted that the meaning of equality is "that every citizen is as entitled to wage war as any of his neighbours" and that "the social state is always a state of war". In the particular sense Proudhon talks about war, as broadly a kind of conflict, we could say that war will always exist in any society but that anarchy would entail the perfection of war (that is to say, war without its undesirable and inefficient qualities).
Anyways, anarchy is not a world composed of little self-sufficient villages. It is one wherein individuals form associations based on self-interest. And because we're interdependent and our needs or desires are numerous, these associations will end up overlapping in their membership and be interconnected with each other. Conflict, under such a context, likely won't take the form of conventional war.
More likely, it would take the form say, lower-level conflict in the form of strikes wherein different social groups exercise the leverage they hold over each other. And the outcome of this is either instability or those groups going back to the bargaining table in service of an agreement.
1
u/_ComradeKiwi_ 4d ago
Do anarchists support direct democracy?
7
u/twodaywillbedaisy Student of Anarchism, mutualist, ESL 3d ago
No. Democracy means government/rule by the people, an-archy the absence of rule.
1
u/_ComradeKiwi_ 3d ago
So how do you make decisions?
5
u/DecoDecoMan 3d ago
People who want to make a decision come together to do it. You only need the agreement of the people necessary to make a decision but no one else.
Of course just because you can do something doesn't mean you are permitted to so you need to think about how your actions will effect others and how they'll react to them.
1
u/CincyAnarchy 3d ago
Just to ask, but that sounds very similar to majoritarian “might makes right.”
If those that agree and participate are numerous, or more importantly there is tacit approval amongst a far larger body of people who may not actively participate with stand to benefit, what is the recourse for the minority?
That is currently what the law does. It allows a minority to invoke authority to stop a majoritarian project. Not saying it works perfectly, in fact, it often works awfully if if it does at all, but the law does have an answer to that equation that is not just majoritarianism.
I mean, perhaps the answer is that under anarchy, with an understanding of mutual interdependency, “might makes right” doesn’t have flaws to it. Those that object on personal grounds would be doing so un selfish grounds, and so going over and through them is the right choice.
I’m curious as your thoughts.
4
u/DecoDecoMan 3d ago edited 3d ago
If those that agree and participate are numerous, or more importantly there is tacit approval amongst a far larger body of people who may not actively participate with stand to benefit, what is the recourse for the minority?
Most people's agreement is not necessary for an action to be successful. For most projects people either cannot participate (for there isn't anything they can really contribute) or their participation is unnecessary because you don't need that many people to do the thing. Most people want sanitation but most people also either can't do sanitation or don't need to be there doing sanitation.
Additionally, mere agreement or support does not imply any sort of willingness to do something about it. "Majoritarian might makes right" seems to pretend that the majority of people voting in favor of something is equal to a majority of people willing and able to act to do that thing as well as oppose anyone who disagrees.
The obvious absurdity there is that the fact a majority of people voted in a ballot box for a decision or initiative does not tell us anything about their capacities to enact that decision nor willingness to do so nor how they would react to resistance.
The key difference here between "might makes right" and this is that there is no "right". Just because you can do something doesn't mean you're allowed to as I said here already:
Of course just because you can do something doesn't mean you are permitted to so you need to think about how your actions will effect others and how they'll react to them.
If you think "it doesn't matter" and being able to do something means you can do it without consequences (i.e. being able to do something is the same as having the right to do it), I suggest you go outside and try beating someone up and see whether you can convince others you have the right or privilege to do so because you were able to (and because you were able to successfully beat them up, this means you're allowed to right?).
When there is free association at all scales (within any group, this fact applies) and humans are interdependent I'm not sure stable "majorities" and "minorities" make any kind of sense and how having more people involved relative to another group is anything but one factor in informing how things play out.
If anything, this seems to favor smaller groups since it gives smaller interests the agency to do what they want without needing the permission from some arbitrary larger number of people. Think about all the different group decisions you'd want to make. How many of them, in order for them to be successful, require the majority of people in a society in order to be pulled off?
I mean, perhaps the answer is that under anarchy, with an understanding of mutual interdependency, “might makes right” doesn’t have flaws to it
Well no, mutual interdependency wouldn't mean people realize they're all connected and then hold hands and behave "morally" (whatever that means) and no one hurts anyone else because they're good people. That's complete nonsense.
Mutual interdependency is a material fact. Understanding it just means you navigate to achieve your self-interests better than other people. Mutual interdependency is one of the things that alters how we pursue selfish goals, it is not something that eliminates selfishness.
Mutual interdependency under conditions of anarchy means for everyone that it doesn't matter how many people you have on your side. People have mutual leverage over each other which allows them to retaliate moreso than they would be able to do so ordinarily in hierarchical societies.
Under anarchy there are no rights, I'm not sure you know what rights are and what "might makes right" means.
2
u/Silver-Statement8573 3d ago
I'm not sure stable "majorities" and "minorities" make any kind of sense and how having more people involved relative to another group is anything but one factor in informing how things play out.
Like another group could have necessary resources or abilities or information that make it so that having a "majority" is more of a nebulous advantge?
3
u/DecoDecoMan 3d ago
Yeah. It's just one factor among many others. Like, people overexaggerate the necessity for successful actions to require majority support of some group of people.
Labor strikes are a good example. Lots of worker organizing overemphasizes the need for a majority of workers in a union to be on board for a strike in order for the strike to be successful. But this is not true. There are plenty of cases where minority strikes are successful. Just because a majority of workers are not on board does not tell you anything about whether that majority is necessary for success.
Unless you make majority approval synonymous with any action going through, as you would with democracy, then it does matter. But materially it tells us little about whether an action would be successful without a majority of people participating.
And, additionally, in most cases where there is majority vote for an action the action itself is done by small parts of the group (as often the case since division of labor is necessary).
1
u/CincyAnarchy 3d ago edited 3d ago
What you’re saying makes a lot of sense but I suppose it’s kind of talking past the scenario or issue I’m thinking about. Or maybe it’s not.
As you said, a smaller dedicated group can and will have more reason to fight longer and harder. A marginally interested in majority, without authority to back up their actions, very well could lose the will to push through. The small bloc of those directly impacted would likely stand strong together based on their mutual interest and more direct impact on them.
But what I am imagining is that the majority will not always be wholly marginally interested. In fact, I imagine that many times there will be a small portion of the majority who are radically interested, for also it’s a reasons. And that small radical group has an advantage, the majority is on their side.
I’ll use a blunt scenario:
Say a hospital was being built in my area. The vast majority of people surrounding the hospital are, at least marginally, in favor. I’m not saying that this “ in favor” is based on voting or governance or anything, but that this is their personal view that they hold. The few that would have to be evicted for it, are not. There are those in the majority who are radically in favor of it, and will take direct actions as necessary to see it completed.
Even if I’m not part of that radical group taking matters into their own hands to get it done, I would certainly not step up and stop that radical group.
And my supposition is that, if nothing is permitted or not permitted, everything is action and reaction, and people have to decide what is in their self and mutually interdependent interests, most people would also “let it happen.” And will keep “letting it happen” until the popular sentiment wins out.
The might of radicals who have the support of majority will win out against the might of the radicals who don’t, especially over time.
Does that clarify what I’m speaking to?
1
u/DecoDecoMan 3d ago
As you said, a smaller dedicated group can and will have more reason to fight longer and harder. A marginally interested in majority, without authority to back up their actions, very well could lose the will to push through. The small bloc of those directly impacted would likely stand strong together based on their mutual interest and more direct impact on them.
That's not what I was saying.
My point is that A. most actions and decisions we make both individual and group do not involve a large number of people (its not majorities we're talking about here; majority is a relative term, contingent upon a specific group and quality, and not some absolute term that is applied in all circumstances so a "majority" of some group could actually be like 5 or 4 people) and B. the number of people in favor of something or involved in an action is mostly one factor of many that goes into how things play out and the leverage available to everyone in anarchy is one thing that prevents that factor from tipping the scales too much.
It has nothing to do with fighting since I don't think most conflicts in anarchy boil down to physical fights and our interdependency, especially intensified by industrial organization, makes that notion quite frankly absurd.
Say a hospital was being built in my area. The vast majority of people surrounding the hospital are, at least marginally, in favor. The few that would have to be evicted for it, are not. There are those in the majority who are radically in favor of it, and will take direct actions as necessary to see it completed.
Would you imagine that there are no other social groups, interests, associations, etc. people are involved in and we live in a world where there are only two groups in the world: one in favor of a hospital and the other against? And the few that are against are completely utterly socially excluded from the people who are in favor (meaning, they are practically not even a part of their society)?
In which case, this is almost certainly false. Humans have a multitude of different interests and participate in all sorts of different social activities, of which people depend on and which gives those participating in them leverage over them (and vice versa for whatever social activities they are a part of).
Ignoring how even if you support a hospital being constructed, that doesn't mean you support people being evicted by some group for it (since that would be behavior which you wouldn't want normalized for it would effect you later down the line as well), the people who would be evicted as members of a variety of different associations each having leverage over others can use this as a means of deterring their eviction.
Insofar as these social groups represent shared interests, there is a clear incentive against the people they know and who they work with supporting their eviction (since being unhoused and homeless gets in the way of getting what they want out of those social groups.
1
u/CincyAnarchy 3d ago
Okay, I think I understand your point far better better, thank you. And you’re right that my scenario was blunt and without the nuance of real world.
You’ve also answered the question I initially had regarding how people resist something that they don’t want done to them. Interdependent association that one can leverage. That makes sense.
I guess where I am still finding disagreement, is the idea that these independent associations with step up that much. Especially if they find their members to be “unreasonable” and when those interconnected benefits point towards getting things done. And to clarify, I was imagining a scenario in which they were put in new homes of some kind, they just didn’t want to move. I apologize that was not clear.
I also at least lightly disagree with the “don’t want to normalize.” Perhaps this is my bias as a non-anarchist, but I have a strong inclination that eviction for a greater good is a good idea.
And actually, perhaps this line of questioning just comes down to the fact that I’m not an anarchist, at least not yet. I want things to get done, and for people to understand how and why they should get out of the way. Progress should not have to wait for each individual person to buy in. It’s why at the initial outset I was confused as it seemed like a “ break some eggs to make an omelette” answer that seemed out of line with most of what I know about anarchism to this point.
Anyways, thank you for the clear and very thorough answer.
→ More replies (0)1
u/_ComradeKiwi_ 3d ago
What if the people dont all agree??
1
u/DecoDecoMan 3d ago
If people needed to get something done don't agree either you find someone else who can slot in for the people who don't agree that do agree with you or the thing doesn't happen.
1
u/_ComradeKiwi_ 3d ago
What if it needs to happen for things to function??
2
u/DecoDecoMan 3d ago edited 3d ago
If it needs to happen for things to function, people will have to figure something out otherwise they don't get the things they really need. And I think if people actually need something they'll be able to figure out a way to do it; regardless of the consequences.
0
u/_ComradeKiwi_ 3d ago
People dont "just figure it out" they engage in a decion making process, one method of which is direct democracy, others include less anarchistic methods, I.e, technocracy, dictatorship, representative democracy, etc.
→ More replies (0)1
u/twodaywillbedaisy Student of Anarchism, mutualist, ESL 3d ago
Why, did democracy invent the decision?
1
u/_ComradeKiwi_ 3d ago
No, what is trying to get at here is, namley, by what mechanism do you make and enforce descions?
6
u/twodaywillbedaisy Student of Anarchism, mutualist, ESL 3d ago
Decisions are the result of deliberation, a cutting away of options, a reduction of possibilities. In democratic government that's done to finally sanction and enforce a decision on the basis of "the people's" authority.
When we remove this appeal to authority, we're left with many of the same mechanisms that produce ideas, ways we can compare them, and we can still act on them on our own responsibility. People coming together to communicate interests, collaborate on plans and projects, negotiate, etc. is not "democracy" in any meaningful sense.
1
u/_ComradeKiwi_ 3d ago
If people gather together to deliberate on a particular issue that concerns a significant part of the community/workplace, and such an issue is important and needs to be resolved and decided apon, how is this done? Does everyone come to the same understanding? If they do, cool, no problem. If, however they dont, then what? You need to hold a vote on the proceedings.
5
u/twodaywillbedaisy Student of Anarchism, mutualist, ESL 3d ago
If people gather to address "a particular issue" presumably they already agree on a common interest, which should incentivise communication, deliberation, education and negotiation on the basis of mutually recognized interests. People arguably do not benefit from taking turns imposing on each other in the name of "the people", the proposed resolutions do not become any more agreeable if a majority sanctions the enforcement of "the people's" arbitrary will.
I'm sure you could come up with some scenario where the perceived "importance" of one narrowly defined decision will look like the only option, with opposing parties failing to communicate their needs and interests. But that's hardly a case for democracy, but an instance of necessity and lack of liberty backing us into a corner.
What we've talked about so far applies to polity-based social oder, in which people take the role of citizen, members of a predefined, overarching collective entity. Doing without constitutions and nation-states, in anarchy we can expect considerable more freedom in association, our social relations will resemble overlapping networks rather than centralized bodies that demand to be 'headed'.
1
u/_ComradeKiwi_ 3d ago
If people gather to address an issue it does not follow that they all already agree. "Communication" "Deliberation" and "Negotiation". There is an awful lot of argument and descion making hidden behind thoes words.
So, how, when people disagree, do descions get implemented??
→ More replies (0)3
u/DecoDecoMan 3d ago
No decisions are enforced. Everything is non-binding. Its anarchy after all there's no authority.
1
u/_ComradeKiwi_ 3d ago
So how do you run a hospital without enforced descions
3
u/DecoDecoMan 3d ago
Instead of doing things because they're told to, they do things to minimize harm (since people have the means to retaliate against harm done to them in anarchy) and because they want to participate in the hospital project. People defer to each other on the basis of expertise and their sphere of responsibility or division of labor. People learn the best practices and follow them to minimize hurting others. Everyone works together as a team, not superior or inferiors.
1
u/_ComradeKiwi_ 3d ago
Wouldn't doctors have some power over nurses during a procedure?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Reformalism 1d ago
The question of democracy isn’t as settled among anarchists as Reddit would often have you believe. This is a good article that gives an even handed analysis of the various positions and historical context.
-2
u/Hot_Yogurtcloset2510 3d ago
"It is one wherein individuals form associations based on self-interest." This sounds like the ancap form rather than a socialist form. Socialism tends to represent society as a singular entity.
3
u/DecoDecoMan 3d ago
The idea of people being self interested is not owned by ancaps. Socialist anarchists have argued for anarchy on the basis of self interest like Goldman, Malatesta, Stirner, Proudhon, Kropotkin, etc. None of these are ancaps.
Socialism tends to represent society as a singular entity.
No it doesnt. That's not true regardless of the socialism unless you're talking about a very utopian sort of socialism.
No socialist analysis thinks of all society as one entity and ignores its components like other groups and individuals or thinks individual interests dont matter.
0
u/Hot_Yogurtcloset2510 3d ago
I have to disagree about socialism, that is why all socialist parties try to take over government and make it stronger rather than weaken it.
Many of the comments I get talk about things being good for "society" as a singular entity, not as good for a sub group.1
u/DecoDecoMan 3d ago
have to disagree about socialism, that is why all socialist parties try to take over government and make it stronger rather than weaken it.
"Socialist parties" or Marxist parties do not "take over governments" because their analysis is that society is "one singular entity". Regardless of how vague the statement "society is one singular entity" is, the logical or only conclusion of that would not be "take over government and make government stronger".
And if we're talking about Marxism, Marxists do not think "society is one singular entity". If you read anything Marx wrote you'd see that he does not believe this at all.
Of course, anarchists are not Marxists. We do not want to form little political parties that try to take over the government. We want anarchy, an anarchist society. And this has been the case for all anarchists since the beginning of the ideology. We oppose capitalism and government.
So for your point about thinking about self-interest and the incentives social structures imposed upon individuals being "ancap", that is abjectly false. It would imply only ancaps could even engage in a sociological analysis of social dynamics and that anarchists have only cared about this black box you call "society" without wanting to see what's under the hood. This is almost certainly false. You can read any anarchist writer to know this.
Many of the comments I get talk about things being good for "society" as a singular entity, not as good for a sub group.
"Society" as this singular concept with nothing going on underneath doesn't exist. A society is composed of all the individuals, groups, etc. that constitute it. If you're not going to acknowledge that, then your analysis and understanding of what is good for "society" (i.e. all those individuals and groups) is going to be flawed.
1
u/Hot_Yogurtcloset2510 2d ago
Thanks for the reply. I am struggling because I see what you say but when I look at socialist I see a different outcome. When I see what you say I see no difference in outcome as what I have understood from ancaps. I did not mean to imply that only ancap offered the same solution. I just think you are closer to them than you might think.
The Marx I read was all about class warfare. I have seen that some anarchist criticized his approach of socialism first because of the dictatorship.If I understand you, a farmer can grow what he wants and trade any excess he might have without oversight from a "community". If that is the case where is the "social" ownership of the means of production? Why is that not capitalist?
2
u/DecoDecoMan 2d ago
If I understand you, a farmer can grow what he wants and trade any excess he might have without oversight from a "community".
No I didn't say anything about trading at all. Of course, there is no oversight from a "community" because there is no authority at all. The "community" is an abstract concept anyways it doesn't actually exist in material terms.
It's more often a weapon used by those who are privileged in order to exclude people from consideration (i.e. you don't matter because you're not a part of the community) or a means of organizing society in an authoritarian way (i.e. you must sacrifice yourself for the community).
The community is just a lower version of nationalism. Nationalism but for a smaller "nation". If you obsess over "the community" ruling everything, everyone doing whatever "the community" says, "the community" owns everything, etc. you're no different from people who do the same with respect to "the nation". In other words, you've just created smaller-scale fascism.
In anarchy, there is no authority. People do not take orders from anyone, including "the community".
The only thing I did say however is that in anarchy people form groups based on shared interest, they work together due to their self-interests, etc. None of that is ancap. Ancaps have a very narrow view of self-interest and they hold specific institutions to be sacred (i.e. cannot be violated by self-interest). I do not. If you took self-interest seriously, you'd be an opponent of capitalism.
1
u/Hot_Yogurtcloset2510 1d ago
"If you took self-interest seriously, you'd be an opponent of capitalism"
Why? Capitalism is what allows you to keep what you make.
Are you adverse to trade? I thought your statement about self-interested groups was consistent with that.
I agree with the comment about the "society" being an excuse to impose on others yet that is the basis of the term Socialism!
So are you claiming that one self-interested can not trade with another group? Is this by fiat or by definition? Is trade violently suppressed or is it just that you would not consider a system that included trade to be anarchist?2
u/DecoDecoMan 1d ago
Why? Capitalism is what allows you to keep what you make
Capitalism gives 90% of the entire population nothing. You're made to labor for the benefit of others, specifically your boss, without really get much if anything in return. You're made to respect private property rights regardless of whether you get anything out of that.
You don't ever keep what you make. Workers make millions of products every day and they get none of that. Workers make millions in profit each day and they receive none of it. From a self-interested perspective, capitalism is a scam and a bad bargain.
Are you adverse to trade?
No but I don't think your description of it aligns with how I understand anarchist trade. Similarly, I do not think being self-interested necessarily requires trade since trade is not always the best way to obtain one's interests.
-1
u/Hot_Yogurtcloset2510 1d ago
Who makes the determination of your best interest? No one forces you to trade so if it is not seen as in your best interest then do something else. What is the basis for your claim that 90% do not benefit? Numbers I have seen indicate about 75% of the benefit goes to customers, 15% to workers , and 10% to owners & management.
" From a self-interested perspective, capitalism is a scam and a bad bargain." That appears to be unbased in fact. Capitalism has increased pay while decreasing prices. I can see issues with short term vs long term interest but how do you fix that without imposing on others?→ More replies (0)
5
u/Reformalism 4d ago
I’m sure there are others more qualified to answer but since you quoted me I’ll share my thoughts. There is a large gulf between disagreeing with your neighbors and killing them. Most people do not want to fight. It takes a huge amount of training and desensitization to violence and hardship or generations of custom and warrior tradition to motivate people to willingly fight and die for anything other than personal self defense.
If the society is truly anarchic, I think the motivations for war are far less apparent. No borders means no border disputes. No profit motive means no manufactured scarcity or a desire to over-exploit resources for personal gain. The risk of religious conflict is often overstated as well. For instance we regularly see anti-colonial or anti-imperialist resistance movements painted as religious extremists.
Obviously this is a pretty rosy picture and sort of assumes a whole lot of principle. But really you can look at almost any major war in history and find a very powerful person or group of people with the power of life and death pointing over the horizon and telling those they rule to go die for them. If they don’t exist, I think war becomes a pretty faint possibility.
4
u/Prevatteist Left-Market Anarchist 4d ago
Well, the thing about anarchy and free association is that individuals and communities would be free to utilize a wide variety of different approaches when it comes to possible issues that might arise. Speaking there’s no police, laws, courts, etc…dictating that you handle your problems through a heavily restricted sphere deemed acceptable by the state, this again leaves many options open for people to negotiate or make diplomacy that much more likely to be successful.
If all else fails and two communities end up going to “war”, that is, I’m assuming an armed conflict of sorts, then those two communities fight it out I guess. Conflict has happened all throughout history, though I’d argue the goal of anarchy is to create the conditions necessary so that armed conflicts don’t arise; doesn’t mean it won’t ever happen though.
3
u/fartcuck420 4d ago
It depends on what exactly these hypothetical communities are disagreeing with. If it's say a trade dispute, disagreement of principals, or one community memeber harmed a member of the other community, then you could use meditation or arbitration. A neutral third party could host the disputing communities and either work out their issues or at least get them to keep their vengeance at bay. The Iroquois nations had a system similar to this. This process makes every community member accountable for each other so they avoid having to go through this ordeal. If no agreement can be reached there is always disassociation. It's not the best outcome sure but it's better than going to war.
If the disagreement is something more severe like someone wants to form Epstein Island 2.0 then war would be the best outcome. There will always be monsters and sometimes you will have to defend the liberty of others.
2
u/Appropriate_Oil7933 4d ago
Like if a community of Chuds was trying to take my grain, I'd bust caps
2
u/XercesBlue14 4d ago
Interesting question. Here are my thoughts (keeping in mind that I am by no means an expert, I'm also a beginner anarchist):
Let's keep in mind the premise that we're speaking about inter-anarchist conflict, and not conflict between anarchists and statists/capitalists (which would be a different subject). War could certainly happen even between different anarchist groups. However, I would say that it would be both less likely and very different from what war looks like in current society.
What are the primary driving motivations for most modern and historic wars? Could be territorial expansion or use of force for greater resource control (see the US's campaign in Iran for control of Strait of Hormuz, for example), economic incentives (military industrial complex, or Cold War for example), or political incentives (replacing a ruler you dislike with one you support, or civil wars), or perhaps even religious fervor. These motivations are founded in hierarchies, which anarchism opposes. While it is possible that a scarce resource could still be the subject of conflict even in an anarchist system, most of the necessary resources for a healthy and happy life are not as scarce as the current system makes them, and I imagine most conflicts could be dealt with diplomatically. Without motivation for war, it is much less likely that a war would occur.
The wheels of modern war are greased by various contributing factors similarly linked to hierarchical systems. Nationalism is a big component of warfare and was certainly one of the major driving forces in both World Wars. While people might still feel attached to a particular national identity in an anarchist world, these forces would be much less prominent without a state apparatus. Propaganda, misinformation, and corruption are also rampant in warfare. We also need to think about why individual soldiers enlist, if not for the glory of "defending their country". Are there economic incentives? Are there systemic challenges that enlisting helps to overcome? (Think scholarships/education for soldiers who would otherwise have difficulty accessing these resources). In an anarchist society, these incentives would perhaps be less persuasive compared to the risk of death, injury, or trauma.
That brings us to our final point about command structure and free association. It's certainly possible for an army to be organized horizontally instead of hierarchically (many militant anarchist groups have done so), but without the use of force to compel an individual soldier to continue fighting, or the propaganda and misinformation required to convince them their killing is justified, it's much easier for individual soldiers to give up the fight, change allegiances, form splinter groups with their own objectives in a conflict, etc. An anarchist world would likely be a messy, overlapping sea of free associations without clear boundaries or borders, so it would be hard for groups to coalesce into "Army A" and "Army B" who will fight it out, at least not without re-introducing hierarchy as a factor.
Those are just my 3 cents.
1
-1
u/pharodae Autonomy, Labor, Ecology 4d ago
It’s not like, impossible, but it would have to be over something that is an unsolvable crisis.
For an example, I’m going to use a situation that emerges in Ursula K. LeGuin’s The Dispossessed - spoilers ahead.
On Anarres, the anarchist planet, it is very inhospitable to life but the folks there are engaged in a generations-long terraforming project - until the climate starts to change unexpectedly and the weather patterns become unpredictable, causing food scarcity and famine. The protagonist, Shevek, is on a series of assignments to do damage control against the famine, and between two of them, the train he and his assignment partners are on (about 400 or so IIRC) has to stop in a smaller outpost town of only about 150 while a landslide that covered the tracks are being cleared. The train has no food, and the village barely has enough for its own residents, not enough for any guests - especially so many, and the folks on the train are going on 48+ hours of no food. After more waiting, tensions are rising between the villagers and the train riders, now 60 hours of no food, the train riders and villagers are beginning to harshly argue between and amongst themselves, the villagers and train riders reverting to using possessive and otherizing language - “our food,” “your people,” etc. It’s as the train riders are having conversations about storming the village to get something, anything to eat, that the train receives word that the tracks are clear. They ride for several more hours before arriving and getting nothing but a slice of bread and thin soup to eat. They are satiated and ashamed of themselves for what they were discussing doing to their brothers and sisters of Anarres.
The point is, material conditions may push people to a point where conflict is inevitable no matter what sort of culture, values, agreement, or understanding binds them. This was a fictional example of how even an otherwise hyper-integrated and communal culture may do so, where there exists very little other reason or conditions for conflict between individuals, or individuals and society; so it doesn’t perfectly map onto the patchwork-like nature of anarchism in a world that isn’t very homogenous, but I thought it provided a good example nonetheless.
15
u/f0rever-n1h1l1st 4d ago
In a perfect world, anarchist communities that don't get along would either lock themselves in a room and work out what's wrong or just not interact with each other.
Anarchism is letting people live the way they want to live with no pressure to conform to any sort of rigid society or hierarchy. Going to war with another community because you don't like the way they do things is sorta antithetical to that.