[chongli]

It’s only come to be a pejorative in recent times. Originally it was the only definition. This goes back at least as far as Aristotle’s political theory in which he categorized systems by the number of rulers (one, few, or many) and whether or not the rulers were “correct” (working toward the greater good) or “deviant” (working toward selfish aims). Aristotle did not recognize rule by “none” or “all” within his schema.

As for the modern pejorative connotation, it’s grounded in a critique: how do anarchist societies cope with motivated and determined rule-breakers without devolving into chaos?

[public_defender]

So you understand the difference between the two definitions and you are falsely equating them in your first comment on purpose? In order to derail the conversation? That's disappointing.

[chongli]

No, I’m not equating them. I’m relating them. They are related. Anarchists have yet to demonstrate that they can build a robust society grounded in their theories (second definition) that doesn’t descend into anarchy (first definition), or result in some individual/group seizing power and putting down the opposition, betraying anarchist principles.

What anarchists propose is not in principle impossible, but it’s never been demonstrated to be practical. A near-universal critique of utopias is that they are not robust in the face of sustained opposition: that is, they assume everyone is ideologically aligned.

[briantakita]

> Anarchists have yet to demonstrate that they can build a robust society grounded in their theories

Fwiw, Anarchists use the analogy of nations having anarchist relationships with other nations.

[chongli]

Nations absolutely have strong hierarchical relationships with one another. The US, for example, tends to use a lot of strong-arm tactics in its foreign policy in order to force smaller nations to toe the line.

If that's the sort of society anarchists envision for individuals, I have to say they're not being very ambitious!

[briantakita]

Nations do not have a hierarchical relationship...only power dynamics, which is the strong-arm tactics that you mention. People are not hierarchical either. If nations or people become less dependent on a hierarchy for their survival, then they are freed from the constraints of & the burden of maintaining that hierarchy or pyramid scheme. This is a reason why totalitarian governments do not want people thinking for themselves or doing things that bring independence outside of that system. A pyramid scheme needs the people to do things to claim that the pyramid scheme itself did those things. In reality, the pyramid scheme did not build the roads, people built the roads.

> If that's the sort of society anarchists envision for individuals, I have to say they're not being very ambitious!

That's a reductionist take but ok...I'm not an anarchist & take a more pragmatic view to my own circumstances but I do appreciate the contributions that the various anarchist Philosophies to contribute.

For me, it's less about envisioning a new society but more about realizing the reality of what actually is...beneath the veneer that we call society is a regime enforced with violence & the imposition of a pyramid scheme on people whether or not they want to take part in it. The government does not make anything but only transfers resources at a loss. If some people gain resources at the expense of many others, then the people gaining the resources are happy while the others who are supporting the system are downtrodden. If the downtrodden stop participating in their own exploitation, violence is committed against them to accept their servitude. Effectively, you cannot have a pyramid scheme without some sort of colonialism or slavery. When the colonized realize they can remove the imposed yoke & organize in other ways, they do. What happens then?

[chongli]

I'm curious to know what you would say are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any state of affairs to qualify as a social hierarchical relationship, if lopsided power dynamics do not.

This is a reason why totalitarian governments do not want people thinking for themselves or doing things that bring independence outside of that system

I think you're mistaking authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Authoritarian regimes (such as Russia or China) seek to create an environment of depoliticization and disengagement, allowing them to go about their domestic business without any opposition. Totalitarian regimes do the opposite: extreme political mobilization of the population toward a particular aim. The difference is readily apparent when these two regime types institute a draft: disengaged people flee, mobilized people sign up to fight.

For me, it's less about envisioning a new society but more about realizing the reality of what actually is...beneath the veneer that we call society is a regime enforced with violence & the imposition of a pyramid scheme on people whether or not they want to take part in it.

Who has the monopoly on organized violence is the primary question answered by any political philosophy. My main criticism of anarchism is that it doesn't offer a solution to this problem, it merely punts. Power naturally accrues to those most willing to use it, so a diffusion of power is a vacuum, and nature abhors a vacuum.

[atlantic]

Nations are highly-organized grouping of people. So what you're saying is, very large and cohesive groups of people can relate to one another without overt rules, therefore, so can individuals. That's a non sequitur.