| MTZehvor said: In a system where violence is not centralized into the hands of one entity, the social forces cancel out of an interest in cost-reduction. Violence is only a good solution to conflict, when the risk of it being costly are low, and by monopolizing the legitimization of violence the state is able to unilaterally set the conditions of society. So ideally, the capacity to induce violence would be as evenly distributed as possible, so that there be large individual costs to inducing violence on others, and so that said costs be internalized by the one inducing the violence themselves, rather than put onto others. I would make the case that this, in generous terms, a very idealistic concept, for a few reasons. 1. First, there needs to be a standard for legitimization. If the state is no longer solely in charge of determining rules of what is and what is not legitimate, those standards must be replaced. What would this be accomplished by? Who would be in charge of creating and enforcing these standards? How do we ensure that these standards do not fall under the same problems that are commonly critiqued by advocates, i.e. designed to disadvantage a minority of the population and bring us back to the same issues we have currently? 2. Second, as you mention, there needs to be a mechanism for ensuring that inducing violence on others comes at a cost. What is that mechanism, and who is in charge of enforcing it? Do we just implement a system where if society feels it was uncalled for, they can retaliate? Or does there have to be more than that? How do we decide what an appropriate cost is for illegitimate forms of violence? 3. Finally, how do we ensure that the most powerful and capable of enacting violence do not begin to cooperate with each other and simply use their advantage in strength to enforce their will? I bring all these questions up because, at least to me upon considering it initially, the issue of an unfair placement of so called "legitimized violence" is non-unique. Human beings are corrupt to the point where there is no structure that will prevent the subsumption of more power and authority than intended. Even if you design a system around the failings that have led to the issues within current governmental structures around the world (and it actually initially works), you will soon find that system itself being exploited for the advantage and profit of whoever can. In other words, regardless of what system you attempt to implement, the threat of violence will wind up being used to oppress people for the benefit of others. |
Yes, it's idealistic, I recognized it with "so ideally." There is nothing wrong though with using ideals as ultimate goals. By getting closer to said goal one benefits.
1. Sure, but must this standard be universal? For example, in our current world with multiple states very few people argue that we should have one super-state that acts as the final arbiter of all global affairs. The plurality of nation-states is recognized as something of value. Within this plurality we have the United Nations which acts as a sort of dispute resolution organization to prevent war. One also recognizes that the ability to induce violence (through nuclear weapons for example) is a huge deterrent because the costs of doing such are so relatively high. Does this mean that there is no war? Nope, but the probability of war has decreased significantly. The anarchist suggests that such mechanisms of dispute-resolution be replicated at the individual and community levels. That each person (and union of persons) is treated as an autonomous moral agent, and it is through compromise and the fear of the costs of war that people reconcile their differences. All of this can be done without an ultimate and universal arbitrator. This is why I suggest that the capacity to induce violence be at a minimum level. When there is an inequality in weapons, for example, one group can impose themselves on another. One could look at examples like feudal Japan where there wasn't necessarily an absolute authority, and those with weapons (Samurai) called the shots. Since I don't want society to revert back to feudalism, a relative equality in access to the means an legitimization of violence is necessary.
2. So there are two types of costs: 1. social reputation and 2. violence. If I act violently toward others, they are likely to act violently back. Furthermore, since there is value in social cooperation and cohesion, if I act violently to others they might choose to ostracize me in non-violent ways. So out of fear for my own life and also out of my material interests (which are bolstered by social cooperation) I am very likely to act social rather than anti-social toward others, unless I have a particular advantage over them.
3. In the same way that hierarchy is reinforcing, so is anarchy. People when living in a free society will be especially attuned to anti-social, hierarchical, and oppressive behavior and therefore wary of it. It's not in most people's interests to be ruled by others, and therefore there would be strong opposition to anybody who tried to declare authority over other people.
It's possible that in local contexts, and situations, certain authoritarian relationships might come to exist, but if the greater society is anarchic then it is unlikely that it'd gain momentum.
That brings me to my next point. Anarchism isn't something that happens over-night. It requires a lot of social reformation and evolution alongside the political reformation and evolution. It seems unlikely that liberal democracy would've come to exist without the enlightenment, and it's just as unlikely that we disentangle authority without a second enlightenment, which changes how common people think about their relationships with one another.
I don't think there would be decent results if the state disappeared tomorrow without all of the pre-requisite social evolution, but that social evolution won't come about until people criticize the fundamental basis of authoritarian and hierarchical relationships, including those pertaining to the state.
"Even if you design a system around the failings that have led to the issues within current governmental structures around the world (and it actually initially works), you will soon find that system itself being exploited for the advantage and profit of whoever can. In other words, regardless of what system you attempt to implement, the threat of violence will wind up being used to oppress people for the benefit of others."
The anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon spoke of "anti-absolutism". It's basically the idea that one shouldn't hold anything to be absolutely desirable. This was the basis of his criticism of utopianism (which isn't the same thing as idealism), capitalism, property, communism (communists of his time were very dogmatic), religion, etc. Another anarchist, Max Stirner had a similar concept of "fixed-ideas" or "spooks" where he believed that we shouldn't put ideas above our individual interests, and in so much as we have an ideology it is to aid the pursuit of our interests. Again he criticized all of these things that Proudhon had.
From these perspectives, anarchism isn't necessarily a system. It is more a method of criticizing hierarchies and ruler-ships. Over time, human society has become increasingly anti-absolutist, and it is through this process that the conditions of exploitation are absent.
I think you're right in that any system of organization if taken to be a fixed good will end with exploitation as people wish to move away from it, but in the absence of rulers people will have the freedom to change organizations to accommodate for rising exploitation. The necessary pre-requisite is that a sizable portion of the population rejects spooks/fixed ideas/absolute ideas. By constantly disrupting the means of exploitation (whatever they might be) we keep exploitation at a minimal and localized (in time and space) level.
As Stirner said,
“Not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.”
I have to say by the way, this conversation has been pretty fruitful!
Last edited by sc94597 - on 29 January 2018
