The point stands though. Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum. There is no way to achieve a power vacuum, it will be quickly filled — the most basic way it is filled is by dictators and warlords. You want to live in a power vacuum? Ask yourself how you will enforce it and suddenly you’re no longer talking about anarchy.
No we’re talking about definitions. You’re advocating for anarchy being a viable state for humankind, I’m saying practically you can’t enforce or defend its existence without turning it in to something that it is not by definition. It is practically impossible to defend a state of anarchy as it will and always has been overpowered by a more organized, hierarchical force.
How did gangs take control of Haiti? How did warlords take control of Somalia? I guess those governments just decided to dissolve and hand over their monopolies on violence to other groups.
? No, power vacuums can exist and are quickly filled by any group with a modicum of power. Look at ISIS. The US deposed the Iraqi government. The new government was weak and those with a stockpile of weapons and funding from other interested countries quickly swept in and took control of large swaths of territory. They also took territory in Syria after the Arab Spring put Assad on his back foot, unable to maintain power in the east.
ISIS wants your stuff. But, your government stops them from taking your stuff. Uh oh, the government is gone. Now ISIS shows up, and they take your stuff.
Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently. Note, anarchy is completely different from the political philosophy of anarchism.
There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, the first anarchists did not use anything resembling that definition.
Proudhon would be rolling in his grave if he knew people were saying that’s what anarchism was. There’s never been an argument made by anarchist philosophers in support of that, as it would be stupid and obviously terrible.
There’s a million terms where the definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with the academic study of it… this happens all the time in politics. The language may change, but the academic usage of the term is already established, dictionaries stay up to date with language changes, rather than using academic definitions.
Another example: the marxist definition of private property has nothing to do with the current definition, what marx meant when he said private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush.
Correct. So, what happens when you have, as you say, pure anarchy without rulers and then some folks interested in power notice that you have no organized way to defend yourself? They take the power easily. These people are often warlords. That’s why anarchy is so closely associated with such things, because anarchy is a power vacuum. That vacuum is easily filled. The most rudimentary thing that can fill it are warlords.
You keep saying this “power vacuums do not exist” line, and I’m wondering what you mean by it, because it’s used to refer to a phenomenon that we can observe everywhere, all the time.
Do you mean that the situation in which no person or group has the power to control the people and resources in a region has never existed? Because that’s what a power vacuum is: When no person or group has the power to make and enforce a set of rules in a region.
The first example that comes to mind of a power vacuum is when the substitute teacher leaves the fifth graders alone for fifteen minutes, and comes back to find the class playing “tag-but-the-floor-is-lava” on the tables. Of course, the fifth graders have an internal hierarchy, so they’ve already established some new norms and rules with some unofficial leaders to bout that have filled the power vacuum left by the teacher when they left the room. Regardless, this serves as a great illustration of the concept of a power vacuum: When the teacher is in the room, they are the centre of power. When they leave, the students take on the role of making and enforcing their own rules, thereby filling the power vacuum created by the absence of the teacher. The short in-between period from when the teacher has left until a new set of rules and enforcement mechanisms has been established is typically referred to as a “power vacuum”.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate because I think this is a learning opportunity and I want to set someone up to give a good answer.
A lot of people hear “anarchy” and equate it with a lack of government. Haiti has not had a functioning government for quite some time. What distinguishes Haiti’s situation from anarchy?
Literally everything, nothing about either of those places even resemble anything any anarchist philosopher ever said, anarchists aren’t even against government in the first place so the premise is nonsense.
I think there’s a reason anarchists aren’t migrating in droves to anarchies like Haiti or Somalia.
being ruled by warlords is not anarchist.
The point stands though. Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum. There is no way to achieve a power vacuum, it will be quickly filled — the most basic way it is filled is by dictators and warlords. You want to live in a power vacuum? Ask yourself how you will enforce it and suddenly you’re no longer talking about anarchy.
this is a no true Scotsman.
No we’re talking about definitions. You’re advocating for anarchy being a viable state for humankind, I’m saying practically you can’t enforce or defend its existence without turning it in to something that it is not by definition. It is practically impossible to defend a state of anarchy as it will and always has been overpowered by a more organized, hierarchical force.
you can’t prove this
power vacuums are fictions deployed by imperialist forces to justify regime change
How did gangs take control of Haiti? How did warlords take control of Somalia? I guess those governments just decided to dissolve and hand over their monopolies on violence to other groups.
I don’t know the particular histories you’re talking about, but I bet it involves private property, prisons, and policing. none of that is anarchy.
? No, power vacuums can exist and are quickly filled by any group with a modicum of power. Look at ISIS. The US deposed the Iraqi government. The new government was weak and those with a stockpile of weapons and funding from other interested countries quickly swept in and took control of large swaths of territory. They also took territory in Syria after the Arab Spring put Assad on his back foot, unable to maintain power in the east.
power vacuums are a myth
Why are they a myth?
they are a story that people tell to explain the world. but they are not a phenomenon that can be empirically tested.
It’s not so hard to understand. Let’s try.
ISIS wants your stuff. But, your government stops them from taking your stuff. Uh oh, the government is gone. Now ISIS shows up, and they take your stuff.
I don’t even understand the point you’re trying to make.
no, it doesn’t
Oh okay, thanks for that enlightening response.
any time.
You are arguing against a complete strawman, and seem to know nothing about anarchism.
Anarchism is not against government, or even some heirarchy, it’s about the abolishment of unjust heirarchy.
Pure anarchism? How do you define that, and which philosophers did you read to get to that definition?
https://gcide.gnu.org.ua/?q=Anarchy&define=Define&strategy=.
Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently. Note, anarchy is completely different from the political philosophy of anarchism.
There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, the first anarchists did not use anything resembling that definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Proudhon would be rolling in his grave if he knew people were saying that’s what anarchism was. There’s never been an argument made by anarchist philosophers in support of that, as it would be stupid and obviously terrible.
There’s a million terms where the definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with the academic study of it… this happens all the time in politics. The language may change, but the academic usage of the term is already established, dictionaries stay up to date with language changes, rather than using academic definitions.
Another example: the marxist definition of private property has nothing to do with the current definition, what marx meant when he said private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush.
You can’t prove that
it’s tautological
Prove that it is
anarchism is a system without rulers. warlords are rulers. ipso facto.
Correct. So, what happens when you have, as you say, pure anarchy without rulers and then some folks interested in power notice that you have no organized way to defend yourself? They take the power easily. These people are often warlords. That’s why anarchy is so closely associated with such things, because anarchy is a power vacuum. That vacuum is easily filled. The most rudimentary thing that can fill it are warlords.
power vacuums do not exist in fact. you’re telling a story based on a myth.
what makes you think a community would not keep the means to defend itself and it’s neighbors?
You keep saying this “power vacuums do not exist” line, and I’m wondering what you mean by it, because it’s used to refer to a phenomenon that we can observe everywhere, all the time.
Do you mean that the situation in which no person or group has the power to control the people and resources in a region has never existed? Because that’s what a power vacuum is: When no person or group has the power to make and enforce a set of rules in a region.
The first example that comes to mind of a power vacuum is when the substitute teacher leaves the fifth graders alone for fifteen minutes, and comes back to find the class playing “tag-but-the-floor-is-lava” on the tables. Of course, the fifth graders have an internal hierarchy, so they’ve already established some new norms and rules with some unofficial leaders to bout that have filled the power vacuum left by the teacher when they left the room. Regardless, this serves as a great illustration of the concept of a power vacuum: When the teacher is in the room, they are the centre of power. When they leave, the students take on the role of making and enforcing their own rules, thereby filling the power vacuum created by the absence of the teacher. The short in-between period from when the teacher has left until a new set of rules and enforcement mechanisms has been established is typically referred to as a “power vacuum”.
What makes me think that is an anarchist community eschews political organization. There would be no way to arrange a competent defense.
Naive Understanding of the topic detected like
Where did you learn this talking point?
I’m going to play devil’s advocate because I think this is a learning opportunity and I want to set someone up to give a good answer.
A lot of people hear “anarchy” and equate it with a lack of government. Haiti has not had a functioning government for quite some time. What distinguishes Haiti’s situation from anarchy?
hierarchy
Literally everything, nothing about either of those places even resemble anything any anarchist philosopher ever said, anarchists aren’t even against government in the first place so the premise is nonsense.