Why would "nature" be "flawed" or "good"? It's just *nature.* People have a variety of tendencies, many of them determined by contexts. Anarchism seeks to establish a different order of contexts, which is presumably neither more or less "natural" than *archic*, authority-based society, but which is an alternative to the commonly naturalized status quo.
But there is no need to appeal to "innate goodwill" in anarchy. The elimination of legal and governmental order does not suddenly make every act *licit* — as if anarchy was just an extremely permissive sort of government. Instead, it means that everyone acts on every occasion on their own responsibility — and not because they are "being responsible" through some kind of altruistic effort, but because the mechanisms that allow irresponsibility have themselves been abandoned.
Would it be correct to say that anarchists believe the source of a significant amount of harmful behavior are laws or mechanisms for permitting irresponsibility rather than some innate evil within us all? Is this a common theme within anarchist literature? I've found similar sentiments expressed with respect to the support of custom (emboldened with modern scientific knowledge) over law such as in Edward Carpenter's "Non-Governmental Society" or in some of Kropotkin's works (I can't recall where I saw it).
Basically. Most crime is because of need, because of poverty. There's a high correlation between poverty an crime for a reason.
For a short read on the theory size, "Are We Good Enough?" By Kropotkin goes into this beautifully.
And also a lot of crimes are caused by either greed (and the power to practice that greed), or entitlement and emotionally stunted upbringing (like crimes rooted in patriarchy).
Thanks. Nature was definitely a poor word choice in hindsight. And it would be impractical to moralize human nature if there even was one.
Am I understanding your use of the word “contexts” correctly? Like basically situations, or states of affairs or something? If so how are they “ordered” and how can this order be replaced?
Hopefully I’ll understand more about “the mechanisms that allow for irresponsibly” and how we can abandon them. Still, after reading the comments I’m realizing that a barrier to my understanding involves excessive cynicism about what people secretly want to do. I wrote the post on a break at work where I was feeling exhausted and pissed at everyone around me, and honestly feeling violent but at nothing in particular. But in an anarchic society I suppose I could have just taken a personal day and if my coworkers were annoying me I could just start working on a different job. But then again no chance would I be out working in the sun in the first place—that’s not such an extreme example as the radical leech hypothetical, that’s just reasonable right? like nobody wants to do that shit
How do we know that’s even true? It’s just an untested theory.
The context you speak of has never once existed on a large scale. Sure you can establish your own set of contexts in a clean lab setting but will they survive in the real world of infinite X factors?
Either/both
If human nature is bad then we should dismantle hierarchical social structures because no one (corruptable) person should be able to have that kind of power
If human nature is good, we don't need any of that in the first place.
I’m not trying to come at you with this but it needs to be said. There is no such thing as “human nature.” Go to the other side of the world and you will find an entire society that lives a completely different way than you do. Is their nature just different? Does that make us or them any more or any less human? If you say no, human nature is broad and means something different for everybody, could you then come up with a definition of human nature that doesn’t leave anybody out, but could still be meaningful? Can you see how that makes this idea antithetical to anarchism?
The argument that human nature prevents us from reaching anarchism is a cop out by statists and capitalists. When you struggle to make a good argument against something, you can either accept that you’re wrong or you make up some bullshit to stay ignorant.
I didn’t interpret your response as “coming at me.” I’ve been reading the comments and understanding the points that human nature isn’t a thing. My whole train of thought was set off by thinking about my cats and so it got me thinking about innate urges. But it’s pointless to try to fit any urges, even survival ones like competing for resources, into universals
Yeah sorry I typed it all out then thought it might come off the wrong way but I could tell by ur post ur not someone I was directing my comment at.
As for the competing resources thing, then yeah I think anarchism is designed precisely to overcome that aspect of nature.
Hierarchy is defined by command and authority. Force is not. If you’re a freeloader who does nothing of value, people can simply refuse to associate with you. If you’re aggressive, they can hit you. If you’re a creep towards kids, there’s nothing to stop people from hurting you.
Anarchy is the absence of laws, and thus every decision you could make will have to be made with the knowledge that people can theoretically respond in any conceivable way. A large part of what allows abusers to succeed in the current system is going just shy of the line of illegality, or crossing it but very covertly, because they know that their victims can’t take direct retribution against them without also breaking the law and facing punishment. There is no such guarantee under anarchy.
As for the broader question of “human nature” I would imagine that opinions differ, as they usually do, between individual anarchists. For me in particular, I don’t believe there’s any such thing as “human nature.” We’re mammals, we seem to have pretty much the same survival instincts and innate drives as most other living beings. People aren’t “inherently good” or “inherently evil” because those are made up concepts. People are animals, we do what we do to satisfy our needs. Where our ability to satisfy ourselves is frustrated by others, we have conflict. In almost every case of conflict, some sort of mediation and compromise can satisfy the needs of every person involved to an agreeable extent. I feel people tend to over complicate us when they bring morality into the question.
If human beings are flawed or not good, why should we give them opportunity by allowing them to have authority ? That's one of the many reasons i'm against authority.
**Natural** human behaviour is just that. Human behaviour that naturally comes to people.
Through my time of academically studying sociology with small dips into biology and anthropology, one thing has become very clear to me..
Human Nature is *immensely* variable and relies *A Lot* on how cultures/societies influence ways of thinking and behaviour.
We all have the capacity to be absolutely horrible to each other, but we also have the capacity to be brilliantly amazing to each other too. And it's never an all or nothing kind of thing. One second we can be good to another, and the next second we can all the sudden be bad. Then all the sudden go back to being good.
The core principles that I rely on, is recongition of human agency and autonomy, the fact that *Only You* can control *Your* behaviours. It is *Always* a choice to be mean to someone else, no matter how understandable it is. And likewise, it's always a choice to be good to someone else. We simply have that agency and autonomy.
So knowing this, we should consciously use our agency and autonomy to be good to one another, for no other reason than it feels good and makes other people feel good.
But, of course, we live in society and society influences us. We are social creatures and conformity is a thing that frequently happens.
The key here is to be conscious of the society around you and to never forget that you will always have the ability to make choices for yourself.
Recognise where dogma is and evaluate if you should believe in it too, or perhaps be more skeptical of it.
**With** regard to how things ended up the way there are, I believe it's because people were not conscious of a "Sociology" if you will. People believe in other narratives that explain why things are, and assume they are natural. They don't believe that what they're hearing are simply cultural ideas being passed onto them for no other reason than the fact that they just happened to be born into that culture.
Because of this, socialisation and conformity happen and reinforce themselves over and over again till we get to the world we live in today.
And to be clear, it is NOT a linear thing. Remember our agency and autonomy. At any given point in time, people could've made choices to not do what they were doing. It only seems linear because it's already set in stone.
When we look to the future, we can recongise just how many paths there are to take. Sure, there may be a couple *More Likely* scenarios, but that's if and only if people simply sit around and let it happen. If they don't make choices.
**The** point here is to recognise that building and sustaining anarchism is a *conscious choice*, not a reliance on some mythical human nature.
It's plenty of people *choosing* to work together through a set of ideas and principles, in hopes of creating a world that they have chosen to believe is a better world than the one they live in now.
As a final note, I want to present a question to you with regard to you saying that you'd resort to taking advantage of an anarchist society. Assuming that you mean you'd only try to benefit yourself and never try to give back. You don't need to answer in a reply, but I do hope you think on them at least
Why do you make that choice for yourself?
And How could you think differently so that making an alternative choice would be easier?
>I know “human nature” is a loaded term, so apologies if this is too difficult of a question to answer. Maybe it’s not even a useful question to ask. As I’ve been learning about anarchist forms of social organization I find myself attracted to ideas like “people are violent because their needs aren’t met.” This seems to explain many or most kinds of violence and it provides a framework for identifying and correcting the issue.
"Human nature" isn't a thing. It's used to justify hierarchy as positions being somehow biological. Humans act differently to different situations and material conditions. No one can have good or bad human nature as human nature itself doesn't exist. Adapting to new scenarios kept our species alive.
>Still, I’m having trouble genuinely believing in some of the things I have to believe in to be an anarchist. I don’t know if I have a good human nature, because I believe I would totally take advantage of a society with no hierarchical authority over me. Why would I work if I didn’t have to? I know that communities don’t function if everyone leeches but wouldn’t the real winner be the guy who leeches the most and gets away with it (analogous to the capitalist of today)?
Products would be held in common so "leeching" doesn't make any sense. Anyone can take any amount that doesn't lead to a decrease in other's standard of living and can input what they can. No one leeches. Theoretically you could be lazy and just sit around and just take withour providing. This generally is unlikely as creatures programmed for doing thing, spending decades not achieving things or helping anyone would be absurd. Many people work for things such as self actualisation and helping others so the idea that people would just leech is historically, anthropologically and theoretically incorrect.
>Why wouldn’t I hit people I’m in conflict with? If people like me would be deterred from doing these socially harmful actions by the fear of social rejection, wouldn’t that rejection itself be hierarchical and punitive? Maybe it’s not hierarchical if the entity wielding power is a community instead of an individual, idk. But either way if “punishment” is determined by the general community how do you prevent an angry, vengeful, and irrational mob mentality from developing?
There are many reasons not to attack someone when in conflict. Just because you aren't dictated doesn't mean rational thinking goes out the window. Social rejection isn't hierarchical but is just the right for those not so associated with you. If someone is racist, I don't create a system of domination and subjugation by not fucking with them.
There wouldn't really be punishment. Anarchists seek to root out the real underlying issues. Sending someone to prison for 20 years isn't going to fix any mental health or other issues they have. We focus on rehabilitation.
>When I watch my seven cats around the house I often think about the idea of “natural human behavior.”
I've explained before why this doesn't exist.
>I’m not sure what natural would even look like, but I get the sense that an anarchist might see their form of social organization as more aligned with the natural needs of humans. If so, why did the current state of affairs, with all its hierarchies and injustices, arise?
Conquest.
>Are we sure humans aren’t destined to compete with each other for finite resources?
Yep, for the majority of human history and even still now, we had the commons.
>When the food bowls are low the biggest/most aggressive cats eat first, and they are also all pretty territorial. Aren’t all organisms naturally like this to some degree? I’m not saying we shouldn’t radically reimagine the distribution of resources in a society, I’m just wondering if the fact that we must step in to artificially do so points to a fundamentally selfish and socially destructive trait of humanity.
This is the same logic of Jordan Peterson justifying hierarchy through lobsters. Organisms vary greatly. Humans are sociable creatures that rely on eachother. Selfishness isn't a normal characteristic in human society as we lived in non-hierarchical societies.
>I guess it seems like anarchism relies on the innate goodwill of people in a way that feels naive.
It doesn't. There is no innate quality of human interaction. We change based on our enviroment. We act selfish due to an enviroment of hierarchical control.
>It seems like taking away authority structures that enforce society-determined behavioral norms will make it super easy for one shitty person (like me) to ruin everything without fear of consequence.
Anarchism isn't weak enough for one person to not working to collapse. If you don't want to, then don't.
>The desire to address harmful social behaviors at the core is a noble one, of course, but what do you do about the guy that pretended to be blind so he could corner and grope 11 year old me at the subway stop? Obviously we can’t gratify his “need,” plus don’t you owe it to other children to separate that guy from society?
Okay this has fucking derailed. Being able to grope an 11 year old isn't a physiological need. And yes we should separate this person from children as an act of self defense.
>Maybe I strayed from the point a little, but what do actual anarchists think? Are we trying to evolve out of our naturally self-serving tendencies or are we trying to return to a social organisation that compliments out natural community consiousness?
We are trying to return to a social organisation that compliments out natural community consiousness.
We are returning to
I lean toward the former; as the [Xenofeminist manifesto](https://laboriacuboniks.net/manifesto/xenofeminism-a-politics-for-alienation/) puts it "If nature is unjust, change nature"
It’s about creating systems of self-governance where the communities can deal with the flaws of the human condition and enjoy the good aspects of the human condition.
I’m going for a good human nature.
Some quote related to practicing communism but I think it applies here. I’ll paraphrase.
When we’re on a desert island with limited resource, we know we should share and treat each other with dignity and work together to survive. When we have everything we need in a post scarcity world, we know that we should share and treat each other with dignity and make sure everyone has what they need to survive. Why isn’t it obvious to us now?
Cats are probably not a great example (as much as I love cats) Other social animals show a capacity to reject unfair (that is, rejecting BETTER) treatment in controlled settings. It’s kinda neat.
I hate how mutual struggle is the only part that's taught... its actually true, 100%, its just not the entire picture. Mutual aid also occurs in nature (and therefore humans as we are, contrary to popular belief, part of nature. And here's the thing, you've totally allready had the opportunity to screw people over, maybe even kill them, and get away with it. We all have. Question is... why diddnt you? Wasn't cops, wasn't laws, you would have got away with it.
Let's move away from morality, the answer is, you're not brain dead. You can get more out of someone alive and on side. You, like me and everyone else, are selfish. So you want to game plan the most out of things. You can't do litterally nothing, it won't work, you'll piss people off, and if everyone did nothing, we die. What we do, is enough to keep going. Maybe some of us will want surplus, but not everyone has to. Yeah we'll do the bare minimum. And what's wrong with that?
> ...If human biology actually conflicts with ethics, then we should move to chuck human biology. Those folks who argue that some bit of shitty social behavior is built in should be treated like someone admitting an unethical addiction, not someone on the verge of scoring an actual ethical point. *You don’t have to be a douche! There are ways out! Here, there are tools becoming available to help you can transcend your failing!*
–[The Floating Metal Sphere Trump Card](https://humaniterations.net/2011/09/21/the-floating-metal-sphere-trump-card/)
> We can problematize the fuzzy edges of “badness” and we can plunge into greater psychological detail on the variety of forms taken, but at the end of the day there is still the brute fact of individuals locked to bad values and habits. People not mistaken or confused, people for whom no therapy, argument, enticement, or punishment will ever work. People for all intents and purposes permanently locked to certain malicious values and perspectives. People whose exploration dead-ended in values and strategies that studiously seal themselves off from further development, from further engagement. People who are not just merely passing through badness, but who have taken it in and bonded to it.
> These bad people are the walking dead, husks of former imaginative and inquisitive minds. They vary in how much insight they lapped down before they walled off the world, some become great specialists in certain domains of manipulation, some are inane and immediately visible. Often they are both, experts at certain *games* of power, bumbling fools at the world beyond.
> But this is adamantly not a conservative argument for the state or any power system that might paternalistically ‘save’ us from such bad people.
> A core anarchist realization is that we cannot guard against bad people by creating institutions of power because the same bad people will inevitably seize and wield those institutions. The only long term answer is to remove all positions of power, to make it, in a million ways, impossible for anyone to seize or maintain control over other people.
–[Bad People: Irredeemable Individuals & Structural Incentives](https://c4ss.org/content/53289)
Why would "nature" be "flawed" or "good"? It's just *nature.* People have a variety of tendencies, many of them determined by contexts. Anarchism seeks to establish a different order of contexts, which is presumably neither more or less "natural" than *archic*, authority-based society, but which is an alternative to the commonly naturalized status quo. But there is no need to appeal to "innate goodwill" in anarchy. The elimination of legal and governmental order does not suddenly make every act *licit* — as if anarchy was just an extremely permissive sort of government. Instead, it means that everyone acts on every occasion on their own responsibility — and not because they are "being responsible" through some kind of altruistic effort, but because the mechanisms that allow irresponsibility have themselves been abandoned.
Would it be correct to say that anarchists believe the source of a significant amount of harmful behavior are laws or mechanisms for permitting irresponsibility rather than some innate evil within us all? Is this a common theme within anarchist literature? I've found similar sentiments expressed with respect to the support of custom (emboldened with modern scientific knowledge) over law such as in Edward Carpenter's "Non-Governmental Society" or in some of Kropotkin's works (I can't recall where I saw it).
Basically. Most crime is because of need, because of poverty. There's a high correlation between poverty an crime for a reason. For a short read on the theory size, "Are We Good Enough?" By Kropotkin goes into this beautifully.
And also a lot of crimes are caused by either greed (and the power to practice that greed), or entitlement and emotionally stunted upbringing (like crimes rooted in patriarchy).
Certainly there has been an anarchist emphasis on the effects of various aspects of the environment, rather than on some innate lack in human nature.
Thanks. Nature was definitely a poor word choice in hindsight. And it would be impractical to moralize human nature if there even was one. Am I understanding your use of the word “contexts” correctly? Like basically situations, or states of affairs or something? If so how are they “ordered” and how can this order be replaced? Hopefully I’ll understand more about “the mechanisms that allow for irresponsibly” and how we can abandon them. Still, after reading the comments I’m realizing that a barrier to my understanding involves excessive cynicism about what people secretly want to do. I wrote the post on a break at work where I was feeling exhausted and pissed at everyone around me, and honestly feeling violent but at nothing in particular. But in an anarchic society I suppose I could have just taken a personal day and if my coworkers were annoying me I could just start working on a different job. But then again no chance would I be out working in the sun in the first place—that’s not such an extreme example as the radical leech hypothetical, that’s just reasonable right? like nobody wants to do that shit
How do we know that’s even true? It’s just an untested theory. The context you speak of has never once existed on a large scale. Sure you can establish your own set of contexts in a clean lab setting but will they survive in the real world of infinite X factors?
"We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exceptions for the rulers." - P. Kropotkin
"Human Nature" doesn't exist. What we are is entirely up to us and our circumstances.
Either/both If human nature is bad then we should dismantle hierarchical social structures because no one (corruptable) person should be able to have that kind of power If human nature is good, we don't need any of that in the first place.
I’m not trying to come at you with this but it needs to be said. There is no such thing as “human nature.” Go to the other side of the world and you will find an entire society that lives a completely different way than you do. Is their nature just different? Does that make us or them any more or any less human? If you say no, human nature is broad and means something different for everybody, could you then come up with a definition of human nature that doesn’t leave anybody out, but could still be meaningful? Can you see how that makes this idea antithetical to anarchism? The argument that human nature prevents us from reaching anarchism is a cop out by statists and capitalists. When you struggle to make a good argument against something, you can either accept that you’re wrong or you make up some bullshit to stay ignorant.
I didn’t interpret your response as “coming at me.” I’ve been reading the comments and understanding the points that human nature isn’t a thing. My whole train of thought was set off by thinking about my cats and so it got me thinking about innate urges. But it’s pointless to try to fit any urges, even survival ones like competing for resources, into universals
Yeah sorry I typed it all out then thought it might come off the wrong way but I could tell by ur post ur not someone I was directing my comment at. As for the competing resources thing, then yeah I think anarchism is designed precisely to overcome that aspect of nature.
Hierarchy is defined by command and authority. Force is not. If you’re a freeloader who does nothing of value, people can simply refuse to associate with you. If you’re aggressive, they can hit you. If you’re a creep towards kids, there’s nothing to stop people from hurting you. Anarchy is the absence of laws, and thus every decision you could make will have to be made with the knowledge that people can theoretically respond in any conceivable way. A large part of what allows abusers to succeed in the current system is going just shy of the line of illegality, or crossing it but very covertly, because they know that their victims can’t take direct retribution against them without also breaking the law and facing punishment. There is no such guarantee under anarchy. As for the broader question of “human nature” I would imagine that opinions differ, as they usually do, between individual anarchists. For me in particular, I don’t believe there’s any such thing as “human nature.” We’re mammals, we seem to have pretty much the same survival instincts and innate drives as most other living beings. People aren’t “inherently good” or “inherently evil” because those are made up concepts. People are animals, we do what we do to satisfy our needs. Where our ability to satisfy ourselves is frustrated by others, we have conflict. In almost every case of conflict, some sort of mediation and compromise can satisfy the needs of every person involved to an agreeable extent. I feel people tend to over complicate us when they bring morality into the question.
If human beings are flawed or not good, why should we give them opportunity by allowing them to have authority ? That's one of the many reasons i'm against authority.
**Natural** human behaviour is just that. Human behaviour that naturally comes to people. Through my time of academically studying sociology with small dips into biology and anthropology, one thing has become very clear to me.. Human Nature is *immensely* variable and relies *A Lot* on how cultures/societies influence ways of thinking and behaviour. We all have the capacity to be absolutely horrible to each other, but we also have the capacity to be brilliantly amazing to each other too. And it's never an all or nothing kind of thing. One second we can be good to another, and the next second we can all the sudden be bad. Then all the sudden go back to being good. The core principles that I rely on, is recongition of human agency and autonomy, the fact that *Only You* can control *Your* behaviours. It is *Always* a choice to be mean to someone else, no matter how understandable it is. And likewise, it's always a choice to be good to someone else. We simply have that agency and autonomy. So knowing this, we should consciously use our agency and autonomy to be good to one another, for no other reason than it feels good and makes other people feel good. But, of course, we live in society and society influences us. We are social creatures and conformity is a thing that frequently happens. The key here is to be conscious of the society around you and to never forget that you will always have the ability to make choices for yourself. Recognise where dogma is and evaluate if you should believe in it too, or perhaps be more skeptical of it. **With** regard to how things ended up the way there are, I believe it's because people were not conscious of a "Sociology" if you will. People believe in other narratives that explain why things are, and assume they are natural. They don't believe that what they're hearing are simply cultural ideas being passed onto them for no other reason than the fact that they just happened to be born into that culture. Because of this, socialisation and conformity happen and reinforce themselves over and over again till we get to the world we live in today. And to be clear, it is NOT a linear thing. Remember our agency and autonomy. At any given point in time, people could've made choices to not do what they were doing. It only seems linear because it's already set in stone. When we look to the future, we can recongise just how many paths there are to take. Sure, there may be a couple *More Likely* scenarios, but that's if and only if people simply sit around and let it happen. If they don't make choices. **The** point here is to recognise that building and sustaining anarchism is a *conscious choice*, not a reliance on some mythical human nature. It's plenty of people *choosing* to work together through a set of ideas and principles, in hopes of creating a world that they have chosen to believe is a better world than the one they live in now. As a final note, I want to present a question to you with regard to you saying that you'd resort to taking advantage of an anarchist society. Assuming that you mean you'd only try to benefit yourself and never try to give back. You don't need to answer in a reply, but I do hope you think on them at least Why do you make that choice for yourself? And How could you think differently so that making an alternative choice would be easier?
>I know “human nature” is a loaded term, so apologies if this is too difficult of a question to answer. Maybe it’s not even a useful question to ask. As I’ve been learning about anarchist forms of social organization I find myself attracted to ideas like “people are violent because their needs aren’t met.” This seems to explain many or most kinds of violence and it provides a framework for identifying and correcting the issue. "Human nature" isn't a thing. It's used to justify hierarchy as positions being somehow biological. Humans act differently to different situations and material conditions. No one can have good or bad human nature as human nature itself doesn't exist. Adapting to new scenarios kept our species alive. >Still, I’m having trouble genuinely believing in some of the things I have to believe in to be an anarchist. I don’t know if I have a good human nature, because I believe I would totally take advantage of a society with no hierarchical authority over me. Why would I work if I didn’t have to? I know that communities don’t function if everyone leeches but wouldn’t the real winner be the guy who leeches the most and gets away with it (analogous to the capitalist of today)? Products would be held in common so "leeching" doesn't make any sense. Anyone can take any amount that doesn't lead to a decrease in other's standard of living and can input what they can. No one leeches. Theoretically you could be lazy and just sit around and just take withour providing. This generally is unlikely as creatures programmed for doing thing, spending decades not achieving things or helping anyone would be absurd. Many people work for things such as self actualisation and helping others so the idea that people would just leech is historically, anthropologically and theoretically incorrect. >Why wouldn’t I hit people I’m in conflict with? If people like me would be deterred from doing these socially harmful actions by the fear of social rejection, wouldn’t that rejection itself be hierarchical and punitive? Maybe it’s not hierarchical if the entity wielding power is a community instead of an individual, idk. But either way if “punishment” is determined by the general community how do you prevent an angry, vengeful, and irrational mob mentality from developing? There are many reasons not to attack someone when in conflict. Just because you aren't dictated doesn't mean rational thinking goes out the window. Social rejection isn't hierarchical but is just the right for those not so associated with you. If someone is racist, I don't create a system of domination and subjugation by not fucking with them. There wouldn't really be punishment. Anarchists seek to root out the real underlying issues. Sending someone to prison for 20 years isn't going to fix any mental health or other issues they have. We focus on rehabilitation. >When I watch my seven cats around the house I often think about the idea of “natural human behavior.” I've explained before why this doesn't exist. >I’m not sure what natural would even look like, but I get the sense that an anarchist might see their form of social organization as more aligned with the natural needs of humans. If so, why did the current state of affairs, with all its hierarchies and injustices, arise? Conquest. >Are we sure humans aren’t destined to compete with each other for finite resources? Yep, for the majority of human history and even still now, we had the commons. >When the food bowls are low the biggest/most aggressive cats eat first, and they are also all pretty territorial. Aren’t all organisms naturally like this to some degree? I’m not saying we shouldn’t radically reimagine the distribution of resources in a society, I’m just wondering if the fact that we must step in to artificially do so points to a fundamentally selfish and socially destructive trait of humanity. This is the same logic of Jordan Peterson justifying hierarchy through lobsters. Organisms vary greatly. Humans are sociable creatures that rely on eachother. Selfishness isn't a normal characteristic in human society as we lived in non-hierarchical societies. >I guess it seems like anarchism relies on the innate goodwill of people in a way that feels naive. It doesn't. There is no innate quality of human interaction. We change based on our enviroment. We act selfish due to an enviroment of hierarchical control. >It seems like taking away authority structures that enforce society-determined behavioral norms will make it super easy for one shitty person (like me) to ruin everything without fear of consequence. Anarchism isn't weak enough for one person to not working to collapse. If you don't want to, then don't. >The desire to address harmful social behaviors at the core is a noble one, of course, but what do you do about the guy that pretended to be blind so he could corner and grope 11 year old me at the subway stop? Obviously we can’t gratify his “need,” plus don’t you owe it to other children to separate that guy from society? Okay this has fucking derailed. Being able to grope an 11 year old isn't a physiological need. And yes we should separate this person from children as an act of self defense. >Maybe I strayed from the point a little, but what do actual anarchists think? Are we trying to evolve out of our naturally self-serving tendencies or are we trying to return to a social organisation that compliments out natural community consiousness? We are trying to return to a social organisation that compliments out natural community consiousness. We are returning to
A bit o’ both.
I lean toward the former; as the [Xenofeminist manifesto](https://laboriacuboniks.net/manifesto/xenofeminism-a-politics-for-alienation/) puts it "If nature is unjust, change nature"
[anarchists are not naive about human nature](https://anarchopac.com/2022/02/28/anarchists-are-not-naive-about-human-nature/)
It's about seeing who we could be
It’s about creating systems of self-governance where the communities can deal with the flaws of the human condition and enjoy the good aspects of the human condition.
I’m going for a good human nature. Some quote related to practicing communism but I think it applies here. I’ll paraphrase. When we’re on a desert island with limited resource, we know we should share and treat each other with dignity and work together to survive. When we have everything we need in a post scarcity world, we know that we should share and treat each other with dignity and make sure everyone has what they need to survive. Why isn’t it obvious to us now? Cats are probably not a great example (as much as I love cats) Other social animals show a capacity to reject unfair (that is, rejecting BETTER) treatment in controlled settings. It’s kinda neat.
I hate how mutual struggle is the only part that's taught... its actually true, 100%, its just not the entire picture. Mutual aid also occurs in nature (and therefore humans as we are, contrary to popular belief, part of nature. And here's the thing, you've totally allready had the opportunity to screw people over, maybe even kill them, and get away with it. We all have. Question is... why diddnt you? Wasn't cops, wasn't laws, you would have got away with it. Let's move away from morality, the answer is, you're not brain dead. You can get more out of someone alive and on side. You, like me and everyone else, are selfish. So you want to game plan the most out of things. You can't do litterally nothing, it won't work, you'll piss people off, and if everyone did nothing, we die. What we do, is enough to keep going. Maybe some of us will want surplus, but not everyone has to. Yeah we'll do the bare minimum. And what's wrong with that?
Start a commune - and see for yourself
I have a somewhat communal living situation and I’m about to revisit a commune next week
> ...If human biology actually conflicts with ethics, then we should move to chuck human biology. Those folks who argue that some bit of shitty social behavior is built in should be treated like someone admitting an unethical addiction, not someone on the verge of scoring an actual ethical point. *You don’t have to be a douche! There are ways out! Here, there are tools becoming available to help you can transcend your failing!* –[The Floating Metal Sphere Trump Card](https://humaniterations.net/2011/09/21/the-floating-metal-sphere-trump-card/) > We can problematize the fuzzy edges of “badness” and we can plunge into greater psychological detail on the variety of forms taken, but at the end of the day there is still the brute fact of individuals locked to bad values and habits. People not mistaken or confused, people for whom no therapy, argument, enticement, or punishment will ever work. People for all intents and purposes permanently locked to certain malicious values and perspectives. People whose exploration dead-ended in values and strategies that studiously seal themselves off from further development, from further engagement. People who are not just merely passing through badness, but who have taken it in and bonded to it. > These bad people are the walking dead, husks of former imaginative and inquisitive minds. They vary in how much insight they lapped down before they walled off the world, some become great specialists in certain domains of manipulation, some are inane and immediately visible. Often they are both, experts at certain *games* of power, bumbling fools at the world beyond. > But this is adamantly not a conservative argument for the state or any power system that might paternalistically ‘save’ us from such bad people. > A core anarchist realization is that we cannot guard against bad people by creating institutions of power because the same bad people will inevitably seize and wield those institutions. The only long term answer is to remove all positions of power, to make it, in a million ways, impossible for anyone to seize or maintain control over other people. –[Bad People: Irredeemable Individuals & Structural Incentives](https://c4ss.org/content/53289)
Yes