is one of the most common responses I get when I talk to people (usually liberals) about horizontal power structures. It comes down to some version of “Well, that sounds nice, but what about the bad actors?” I think the logic that follows from that fact is backwards. The standard response to this issue is to build vertical power structures. To appoint a ruling class that can supposedly “manage” the bad actors. But this ignores the obvious: vertical power structures are magnets for narcissists. They don’t neutralize those people. They empower them. They give them legitimacy and insulation from consequences. They concentrate power precisely where it’s most dangerous. Horizontal societies have always had ways of handling antisocial behavior. (Highly recommend Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm. He studied hundreds of forager societies, overall done amazing work.) Exile, public shaming, revocable leadership, and distributed decision-making all worked and often worked better than what we do now. Pre-civilized societies didn’t let power-hungry individuals take over. They stopped them. We used to know how to deal with bad actors. The idea of a “power vacuum” only makes sense if you believe power must be held at the top. If you diffuse power horizontally, there is no vacuum to fill. There’s just shared responsibility. That may feel unfamiliar, but it’s not impossible. We’ve done it before. Most of human history was built on it. The real question isn’t whether bad actors exist. It’s how we choose to deal with them. Do we build systems that make it harder for them to dominate others, or ones that practically roll out the red carpet? I think this opens up a more useful conversation.
What if we started seriously discussing tactics for dealing with domination-seeking behavior?
What mechanisms help us identify and isolate that kind of behavior without reproducing the same old coercive structures?
How do we build systems that are resilient to sabotage without falling into authoritarian logic?
I’d love to hear your guys’ thoughts.
I love it when people start asking the right questions. I think the absolute mess of responses just goes to show that this is an avenue of discussion that hasn’t been pursued nearly enough in leftist circles.
We’ve interacted before - you may remember my comments on an earlier post of yours. I am generally of the position that narcissism lies at the core of all of the issues that anarchism is fundamentally trying to solve. If we can solve the issue of narcissism in society, then everything else more or less falls into place (though there are a lot of misconception about what is and is not hierarchy that gets in the way of seeing that for a lot of people, apparently - I’ll try to address some of that).
What if we started seriously discussing tactics for dealing with domination-seeking behavior?
Since we can reduce our political/social problems down to this particular psychological problem (or at least I claim that we can, more or less), then we can try to understand hoe we might address those political/social problems by understanding how one addresses this psychological problem. Unfortunately, we immediately run into a bit of a trouble. There is no known effective treatment for this personality type/disorder. When we consider that we’re talking about trying to change a person’s personality, this sort of make sense, and it make additional sense when we consider that impaired empathy generally shows up on a brain scan as a sort of brain damage. In other words, our options are severely limited at the individual level. We also know that this personality type is extremely stable over the lifetime of the individual.
There are lots of things we might be able to argue from that position, but one point that I really want to highlight is that we cannot expect that we can make this problem go away simply by changing the material or social conditions of these people. Even a dedicated therapy effort doesn’t really work. While we can largely prevent the creation of these individuals in the first place if we were to create the right social/cultural environment (most are made as infants and children by a variety of bad parenting practices), we cannot completely prevent them from occurring (some are simply born this way - about 1% of the population as I had said before). As such, the solution to this problem isn’t going to be a simple change in initial conditions, but rather an ongoing process that is baked into the fabric of society itself.
Let me touch on the issue of how we went from a bunch of societies that existed for millions of years while reliably and robustly preventing these people from gaining power and making a mess of things to a society that is basically run exclusively by these people and seems designed to empower them. As you know but others may not yet be aware, I have a hypothesis about how hierarchical civilization came to be. What’s important to observe about this narrative is that the peaceful egalitarian societies did not voluntarily become hierarchical. They were coerced/conquered by hierarchical societies that formed from the aggregation of their exiles. This story of hierarchical societies devouring egalitarian ones via conquest and subjugation then repeats itself over and over again throughout history. A question for the room: Is there any documented instance of an egalitarian anarchist society voluntarily reforming itself to become hierarchical?
My basis for anarchism is fundamentally founded in this perspective that narcissism is the root problem to address. IMO, the indigenous people largely did a good job - they just made the mistake of externalizing their narcissism problems, and then the additional mistake of failing to prepare for the consequences of that decision. We just need to learn from their mistakes, and do what they did not: In addition to aggressively policing the narcissists that emerge from within, we need to account and prepare for the external threat represented by narcissistic individuals that exist outside of our society. Even a society that solves the exile problem for itself will still have to deal with the exile problem from others, and that generally means maintaining a strong military or otherwise maintaining some mechanism for defending itself against organized threats from hierarchical societies.
What mechanisms help us identify and isolate that kind of behavior without reproducing the same old coercive structures?
Identifying these bad behaviors is both easy and hard. If you know what to look for, it’s really easy. If you don’t, you’re liable to fall for their manipulation. Simply learning about the various manipulative behaviors that narcissists engage in is the conceptually most straight-forward way to address this problem, and it is certainly effective. There are other ways, though. One thing that I’ve noticed is that narcissists will pretty reliably violate the rules of epistemologically sound argumentation whenever they start to try something funny. Simply educating people about logic (and logical fallacies) and the burden of proof would go a long way toward making them resilient to narcissistic manipulation. If we also teach people to take such violations very seriously, rather than just dismissing it with a simple “everyone is entitled to their own opinion”, we would catch a lot of bullshit very early and stop a lot of narcissistic machination before it has a chance to gain any real traction. If you think about it, tolerance of unsound argumentation is a necessary condition for a society to be vulnerable to non-violent manipulation from bad actors of any sort.
How do we build systems that are resilient to sabotage without falling into authoritarian logic?
I’m seeing a lot of people in the comments conflating centralization with hierarchy, and vice-versa, and this is a big problem. I want to make something very clear: Centralization does NOT imply hierarchy. This is very important to understand, as discarding the useful tool that is centralization out of fear of creating the horrible monster that is hierarchy will cripple our ability to achieve anything at all. But what is centralization? What is hierarchy? Why do people conflate the two?
Centralization is simply what happens when coordination or decision-making is delegated to a subset of the group. These coordinators or decision-makers take on apparently central roles because everybody needs the information/instruction that they provide in order to avoid doing redundant or pointless work. Centralization is desirable, because it means that people can specialize. Not everyone has to be involved in every process. Decisions can be made by those who are most qualified to make them, and everybody else can get on with their work without being interrupted about every little detail.
Hierarchy is what you get when you define an up-and-down axis of power. Some people are above others. Some people are below others. The people above have the power/authority to coerce the people below. Subordination is a crime that is basically defined as an individual defying the directives of an individual above them in the hierarchy. The existence of hierarchy does not strictly depend upon the existence of a particular social or governance structure within a group.
That said, hierarchies naturally tend to concentrate decision-making power in the hands of a few, and that’s why hierarchy always seems to imply centralization in practice. It’s hard to find examples of centralization that do not come with the trappings of hierarchy and coercion - you basically have to study the inner-workings of some worker-owned co-ops to find good examples. Combined with the fact that coercion is a concept that isn’t part of common discourse (though I think that is starting to change), and it becomes easier to see why people might struggle to separate the two concepts.
We can have all of the benefits of centralized coordination without any of the drawbacks of hierarchy. We just need to establish a binding social contract that outlaws coercion, and aggressively enforce it. With these tools in hand, building public institutions or even a powerful military capable of rivaling modern civilization’s best is all comfortably within the realm of possibility.
Hey I remember you!
Honestly, that point you made about authoritarianism being the narcissists perfect political expression really resonated. I don’t always frame it that way myself (I tend to talk about domination-seeking behavior or socialized individualism) but I think we’re circling the same core. And I fully agree that changing material conditions isn’t enough if we don’t also build ongoing, cultural mechanisms to prevent this kind of behavior from embedding itself. Putting the exile issue into historical context: Egalitarian societies didn’t “fail,” they were overrun, the perspective shifts the framing entirely: it’s not about whether anarchism “works,” it’s about how we defend it from systems built to destroy it.
One thing though, not a disagreement, but just to complicate it; I think centralization can easily slip into hierarchy, especially if we don’t design mechanisms of accountability from the start. Even worker co-ops, if they’re not careful, can drift toward soft hierarchies if access to information or power isn’t distributed well. But you’re totally right that centralization and hierarchy are not inherently the same and that distinction needs way more attention in this comment section.
The reason I made this post in the first place is because I think learning to spot domination-seeking behavior could potentially (and should) be as culturally foundational as reading or math. It’s something that I feel like we’re really missing in todays education system if you ask me.
You mentioned narcissists violating epistemic norms. Do you know if there are specific cultural practices or rituals that could make epistemic hygiene emotionally resonant, not just intellectually correct?
I think it’s rather simple, honestly. I like the ideas of anarchism, it sounds good in theory, but has already proven to be impossible
Humans started without governments or societies. We were anarchist already, and moved on to having societies and governments not just because of bad actors but many, many, many, many reasons. Whatever system out there that works the best is likely a monstrous hybrid system of many schools of thought, and likely needs to be fluid and changeable to work
I hear you because I’ve had the same exact thoughts, but I think you may be committing the classic blunder of conflating rules with rulers.
You can still have rules, norms, mores, leaders, even I believe laws under anarchism – you just can’t have absolute, unrevocable authority.
Rules, laws, and leaders sounds an awful lot like a state.
For the last 300,000 years humans have existed, we spent 290000 living according to our nature in anarchy. For the last 10,000 years we’ve been trying and failing at non-anarchy, causing mass death from war, starvation, and disease.
There’s a bit more to it than that. For the last 10,000 years we’ve had comparative abundance, constant technological advances, a population explosion, and globalization.
Bad actors are going to build their vertical power structures whether you like it or not. This is the challenge liberals are posing to anarchists: if you are unwilling to build your own vertical power structure then how do you stop the bad actors from building theirs and then using it as a cudgel against you?
Exile and public shaming are tools that only work against bad actors as individuals. They do not work when the bad actors team up and form a critical mass.
In the distant past, anarchism worked because everyone knew each other and bad actors had nowhere to hide to build their power structures and grow in strength. The agricultural revolution changed all this because of food storage and the potential for an outside group to attack and steal the food. People formed power structures and developed the first militaries in order to defend their granaries and this led to the growth of large cities where people no longer had the ability to know everyone.
Militaries also showed the power of hierarchies. Making decisions by consensus is slow. A military with a formal power structure has a huge advantage in combat against an unstructured tribe of warriors. This was proven again and again as the empires of the past conquered their neighbours.
But I digress. A large city where it’s impossible to know everyone is a huge problem for anarchists who want to prevent bad actors from forming a vertical power structure and taking over. There simply is no known social tool which can combat against the formation of conspiracies and elites within a large society.
I have a bit of an inverted perspective. All anti-social behaviors aside: can Anarchists build and maintain public infrastructure?
I like public utilities. If an anarchist commune can keep a wastewater treatment plant running and even expand sewerage to those without it, I am all for it. If the public drinking water systems can be maintained and uncontaminated that’s a win in my book.
But practically speaking some functions of the state do serve the public, and I find that acceptable.
I like public utilities too. I want clean water, working sewer systems, transit that functions. None of that is anti-anarchist. What anarchists are against is the hierarchical power that controls those things, not the things themselves.
The idea that we need a state to maintain infrastructure just doesn’t hold up when you look at examples of horizontal systems actually doing this. In Spain during the civil war, worker collectives ran utilities and transit. Zapatistas in Chiapas have been building and maintaining clinics, water systems, and schools for decades now. Rojava has been coordinating everything from food distribution to electricity in wartime conditions.
The issue isn’t “infrastructure good, therefore state good.” It’s who controls it, who gets to decide how it works, who it serves. I’m not saying there’s no complexity here, especially at scale. But the assumption that you need a centralized, coercive authority to make public services work - that’s something anarchism directly challenges, and I think with good reason.
I’m with you though, any serious anarchist vision needs a real answer to this. Not just vague gestures at mutual aid, but actual plans for maintenance, for logistics and scaling. I don’t think that’s impossible. I just think we haven’t built most of those systems yet, and we’re not going to build them unless we start trying.
It’s an ongoing conversation, like you say. For my part, I think a good start would be introducing more democracy into workplaces. Like having workers vote on their managers, work conditions, etc. And have other members of the public voting on what projects city infrastructure workers are undertaking.
And then of course a dialogue about how to make it happen – like making sure the infrastructure workers feel valued, and are getting everything they need to succeed.
actual plans for maintenance, for logistics and scaling.
I think this still begins to necessitate structures that begin to resemble the state. After all: Zapatistas, Rojava, Spanish Civil War each have something in common: wartime conditions with military structures. I find it difficult to parse the very real achievements of those movements from that context.
Exile, public shaming, revocable leadership, and distributed decision-making all worked and often worked better than what we do now. Pre-civilized societies didn’t let power-hungry individuals take over. They stopped them.
I’ll grant that it worked in the past. However we live in a post-truth world now, with far more vast populations. And there are loads or capitalist countries that will attempt to infiltrate any place that attempts to rid itself of capitalism, including anarchist places.
How do we know such a system could survive that?
Any new system will need to be able to survive the inertia of tribalism from the previous system, infiltration, and the complexity of millions/billions of people.
The fact that you will have to fight for something good doesn’t mean giving up is the answer.
Hierarchical, formal power structures have a competitive advantage when it comes to making decisions quickly and directing the group. This has nowhere been more evident than in the countless military victories of organized armies over groups of tribal warriors.
The advantage of anarchism and structureless society is with diversity of ideas and the innovations you can get from that. Straight up fights against organized adversaries is its biggest weakness.
I’m not suggesting giving up. I’m trying to point out an issue. And I’d genuinely like to hear an answer on how it would be solved.
Pre-civilized societies didn’t let power-hungry individuals take over.
Pre-civilized societies were small.
The real question isn’t whether bad actors exist. It’s how we choose to deal with them. Do we build systems that make it harder for them to dominate others, or ones that practically roll out the red carpet?
This seems like a misunderstanding to me. The people don’t build systems. The people are subjected to systems built by dominating bad actors.
I asked this in a thread a while ago but I’ll repost it here since I never got an answer:
[I don’t see how anarchism] would work in practice. Hierarchies form to simplify the logistics and social cohesion of a disorganized network of subunits.
As a basic example, how the hell do collectives even communicate with those on other continents? It took millenia for humans to develop reliable seafaring technology, only made possible through the direction of state actors. Sea cables cost millions to maintain; satellite communication is even harder to achieve.
Assuming that any of these could even be accomplished strictly via collectives (“Why the hell should I give you my Chilean copper so you can throw it in the ocean to talk to Europe?”), operating these essential services gives access to power and coercion.
Somebody has to launch the ships or run the heart of the telegraph network. Will you centralize the authority of multiple collectives to regulate and monitor it?..
And if you don’t do anything to bridge the ocean, what’s to prevent ideological drift for that continent; getting a little too centralized for more efficient resource use? Even if your accessible web remains strong and ideologically pure, you have to pray that completely separate webs will be just as strong.
Anarcho-primitivism is the only critique that seems to own the inherent anti-civilization logic, but even then there’s nothing stopping a collective-of-collectives from making a bigger pile of sharp rocks to subjugate you.
The gist of it being that hierarchies form due to the natural gravitation of civilization towards efficiency. Delegating someone with power to direct the actions of a large group will always be more efficient than getting N subunits to reach a web of equilibrium. If you’ve ever tried to horizontally coordinate a group of a large size it’s pretty obvious.
Efficiency begets power and power propogates and entrenches the system that it’s derived from.
A lot of what your comment assumes is that global-scale coordination is a given, like of course collectives have to be connected across continents and sharing copper. But I don’t think that assumption actually holds. Here’s my absolutely radical extremist view: Why should every society be plugged into a global system? That’s the legacy of empire and capitalism talking, this idea that everything and everyone needs to be connected, streamlined, “efficient.”
You’re right that power accumulates where efficiency is the priority, because efficiency always asks what the fastest way to do this is, not who gets hurt in the process. That’s how we end up with hierarchies. Thats how you end up with extractive infrastructures that centralize control over basic resources. But maybe the issue isn’t how to horizontally recreate global coordination. Maybe it’s that global coordination isn’t inherently good, especially when it’s built on unsustainable logistics and deep inequality. If two regions drift ideologically because they aren’t connected by undersea cables, I don’t see that as a crisis. That’s autonomy. And if one group starts consolidating power and turning coercive, that’s a problem. However it’s not solved by having centralized oversight in the first place. That’s how we got here.
So in my eyes, the real answer is: don’t recreate the world we have, and shrink the scope of interdependence. I believe in the need to relocalize needs. Build federated structures where it makes sense, if it makes sense. And to stop assuming the “efficiency” that comes with hierarchy is something to preserve.
My gut reaction to the idea of unplugging is that it’s unwise. It’s too easy for groups on one side of the planet to unintentionally affect groups on the other side. I think there will always be a need for a reasonable level of global communication and cooperation.
I don’t disagree that anarchist ideals about localization make sense as a reaction to our modern, global, hierarchical world. I’m not arguing to preserve the efficiencies of centralization but pointing out that their gravity makes opposition by other means impossible. Here’s the issue that I never see resolved:
if one group starts consolidating power and turning coercive, that’s a problem. However it’s not solved by having centralized oversight in the first place. That’s how we got here.
Then how does it get solved? History shows a thousand instances of empires expanding through piece meal conquering of fragmented autonomous polities. Look at the European conquest of Mesoamerica, how the Roman’s picked apart most of the world, the colonization of Ireland, the fate of the Iroquois Confederacy, etc… The aggressor doesn’t even need a material or martial advantage, as in Macedonia’s subjugation of the loose federation of Greek city states.
Generally, the expansion only stops from an internal shift (dynasty change, leader death, coup, etc…), hitting a geographical limit, or when the aggressor runs into someone too large to bully.
I’ll point out as well that this doesn’t even need to be a nefarious, expansionist scheme. Changes in climate can apply a survival pressure to take what you need from neighbors. Take for example, sea level rise reducing arable land for the Vikings, one of the causes for their invasion and settling in Britain.
I‘m currently reading David Graeber and David Wengrow: The Dawn of Everything.
It dives deeper into the history of the misconceptions of power.
It comes down to some version of “Well, that sounds nice, but what about the bad actors?”
I have encountered the same. One avenue of argumentation that typically follows is “but we needs cops because there’s crime” -> “crime can be reduced with social policy, without cops” -> “but never to zero” -> “but cop duties needn’t be a person’s career”.
Next comes politics. The political system where I live is a parliamentary republic with proportional elections. Compared to volatile cases (e.g. presidential two-party system) it is fairly slow. Risk of takeover by a bad actor is not perceived as high. Anarchist critique fails to get attention.
I have also encountered the argument: “if we decentralize, we [insert national indentity] step too far down the organizational ladder [of ability to mobilize resources fast], and become possible to conquer”. People perceive that a stateless area or low-intensity state would be an invitation for the nearest highly invasive state. They also fear that change would cause weakness, which would be exploited. Thus, a foreign state becomes a justification for the local state. Sadly I must admit that the reasoning is not without merit.
My responses have typically been:
-
leaders wanting to return to power are a problem for democracy
-
playing voter groups against each other causes long-term problems (degrades cooperation)
-
electoral democracy inherently favours wealthy individuals (campaign expenses)
-
decentralization protects against takeover and decapitation strike
-
authoritarian takeover of local state has happened already once, with tragic results
-
party politicans have for decades failed to enact simple, popular measures (e.g. progressive income tax)
My suggestion to a statist person typically ends up being “at least, try sortition”. Which is laughably hard, since it would require a rewrite of the constitution, and parties agreeing to a measure that pushes them into history books. :)
I can convincingly argue that sortition reduces the sway that elites hold over policy, and makes equalizing policy measures easier to pass. But it keeps the number of politicians small and leaves the door open for acting fast (e.g. in case of military threat).
Meanwhile, I would appreciate if mainstreamers left anarchists on their own to experiment with more. Especially in the economy.
P.S. Ultimately, I fear that anarchist society can be only planted on the ruins of a state. The niche must have been emptied by a catastrophic event (and it’s ethically wrong to cause one). However, it’s not wrong to do what’s right when others have done wrong. One should know that catastrophic events increase people’s desire to have stability and order. So there must be a type of anarchy that can quickly deliver freedom + equality + stability + order. That’s a pretty tall list, which is why it typically doesn’t happen.
-
Man, people are so fatalistic and utopian in their world views. The fact is that we are beautiful, wretched, capable creatures, and life is a fight. People are gonna beat you down, and the world is gonna shit all over you. Whether we’re watching people do their fucking war games and playing monopoly with the world, we rise up and punch a bitch in the face when he fucks with us. Anarchism is a way of being, and we’re clever as fuck. We’re gonna work this shit out and jump over hurdles and get into ugly arguments and love our family right. We can convolute this shit and try to work out the fantasy worlds we would love to live in - at the end of the day, we try to fill our bellies and be loved. And 9 times out of ten, you’re not arguing with the world, you’re failing to confront yourself. How do prevent hierarchy? We fucking stand up to bullies, protect ourselves, and treat our women right. Feel me?
How do horizontal power structures handle problems of global scale? The COVID pandemic and how people behaved and created consequences for others comes to mind. I’m not sure if any of the tactics you mention would work. You can’t shame people who think they’re doing the right thing, can’t exile them without a power structure that can use force on them, they have no leadership to revoke, and I’m not sure how distributed decision making would apply.
Another idea on that scale might be best exemplified by climate change (or pfas etc). Do horizontal power structures mean most people could ignore how they’re impacting others negatively? If not, how would that be handled on a global scale?
If anybody is going to answer, I’d appreciate it greatly if the answer did not compare how much worse vertical systems are for these problems. If you can give me a novel idea about this, I’d appreciate it.
How do horizontal power structures handle problems of global scale? The COVID pandemic and how people behaved and created consequences for others comes to mind.
Horizontal power structures can only be stable if people have a healthy culture of proactively fighting selfish actions. Any teenager will have experienced students firing their teachers, the village taking children away from abusive parents, women going on a sex strike to get men to take allegations of catcalling seriously, etc.
So when COVID rolls around and some people act selfishly, people already know from experience how to act with it. People are already familiar with shunning friends because they refuse to grow out of hurting others, they’re already familiar with boycotting specific businesses and finding alternatives. And most importantly, people already know that all of this is waiting for them if they do choose to be selfish, so they are way more likely to choose the right thing from the start.
Ideally, horizontal power structures also come with Restorative Justice. For every crime that people have ever heard of, they’ll have seen the process of someone being kept at a safe distance until they learn why they were wrong and make amends to those they wronged, and receiving help with learning.
But sure, suppose somehow that 40% of the population doesn’t really care much about keeping each other healthy and is not going to budge without consequences. In that case: Making people sick is an act of violence, so people would be in their rights to use the threat of reciprocal violence to keep people that refuse to wear masks at 2m distance.
This would be a problem that needs discussion. My fifteen minute answer would be that those of the 60% that feel comfortable with it could be given consent by the community to walk around with 2m long halberds (shaped to be blunt when poking and sharp when slicing) and keep the 40% out of spaces where they would cause harm with the threat of force. They could share a digital zine on how to make these halberds from common household materials, and have the normal justice system for people that misuse those weapons.
can’t exile them without a power structure that can use force on them
If you can’t find twenty people to work together to overpower and exile one person, that’s a good sign that you’re wrong about wanting to exile them.
Another idea on that scale might be best exemplified by climate change (or pfas etc). Do horizontal power structures mean most people could ignore how they’re impacting others negatively? If not, how would that be handled on a global scale?
In a horizontal power structure, a nation disregarding the agreed-on CO2 output norms is the same thing as a person disagreeing the agreed-on “no catcalling” norms. Talking to them, boycotting them, using violence if necessary. If the USA and EU didn’t have a position of power over the rest of the world, their excess CO2 production would be answered with a boycott from the rest of the world.
The willfully negligent poisoning of others is also an act of violence. People who do not understand that reckless scientific experimentation or deployment of untested chemicals is murder can be stopped by any means up to and including violence. In a horizontal power structure, every Chemours factory would be carefully decontaminated rubble.
Though more realistically, Chemours would never have existed. There would not be a patent on PFAS. People would treat those that deploy PFAS without prior study on its health effects as violent. People would discover its toxicity and environmental harm within years of its discovery and before any large-scale roll-out, and the cleanup of contaminated sites would be manageable by volunteers.
I’m curious if you agree that police not providing protection to Italian immigrants in the US in the late 19th century caused the Mafia to be created to fill that need.
I’m not saying cops are good, but most of the anarchists I’ve spoken to have the idea that it would be great for everybody to be willing to be violent with others when disagreements arise.
Maybe I can find twenty people to exile someone, but what if they can find forty to protect themselves? Does that make one group more right than the other? I also think that finding 20 people who agree with you makes you think there’s merit to your position and justification for violence is an absolutely terrifyingly low bar.
If you can give me a novel idea about this, I’d appreciate it.
Change the select few decisionmakers regularly. With dice, not an expensive and polarizing campaign followed by elections. (Note: creates incentive to educate everyone well, since they could be chosen at random.)
Education of everyone doesn’t mean any individual can make informed decisions even on their own health let alone understand the chemistry and impact of PFAS, for example. But I do agree there’s something to the idea of removing incentives to campaign.
Do you feel current systems of governance are handling these global collective action problems well? Because I do not. I think they’re just very difficult and thorny problems that we’ll always have to wrestle with.
I just don’t think that current systems being meh means that any given other system has merit. That’s why I mentioned not comparing in my comment.
I think the main advantage of anarchism and adjacent systems is better local governance and personal freedom. But I’m not really convinced that means global governance would be worse. If anything, disarming the global superpowers would improve international solidarity since different autonomous groups could more effectively reach agreements for the common good rather than being bullied into doing harmful things by the powerful. This would make the anarchist-UN potentially much more effective than it is now. Otherwise, I don’t think it would be too different than the way international orgs work now plus some additional norms and structures to avoid bullying and encourage consensus.
But my point is just that not having a clear solution for this specific problem isn’t a reason against these ideas. These issues are some of the most difficult to solve and I’d rather focus on low-hanging fruit first.
not gonna get fully into the weeds here but ‘have no leadership to revoke’ is an odd point to try and make when the covid disinfo campaign absolutely had leadership.
I meant it more as individuals than were carrying out antisocial behaviors could do so without having leadership positions. It’s not only the group and its leaders that were capable of harm.
I don’t deny that these are difficult problems, and I won’t attempt to address everything that you mention, but “can’t exile them without a power structure that can use force on them” isn’t true. The use of force doesn’t require any sort of formal vertical power structure. Problems of global scale are just combinations of many individual actions at the local scale, and at the local scale, if someone is committing violence or endangering others, all it takes is a few concerned people to team up and remove them using whatever force needed. Firearms help, but even those are not strictly necessary. If such problems are addressed quickly enough at the local level, then they are less likely to scale up to the global level in any organised way. If many people are already committing violence together on a larger scale, then removing them becomes a matter of tribal warfare or genocide. Ugly, and not something that I recommend, but far from impossible, as history has shown.
Firearms help
Firearms allow an individual to commit mass murder before a a bunch of good guys are even aware of it. There’s a bunch of ways individuals can have way more destructive power than is reasonable. I’m not saying a vertical power structure is required, just that I still don’t see how a horizontal one can deal with destructive individuals or provide safety without most people being willing to kill other humans, maintain the many skills that would require, and have a mindset where being constantly vigilant doesn’t cause some sort of mental issues. If it’s just a problem that’s doesn’t currently have a solution, that’s fine. I tend to agree with Nozick that it just creates competing and escalating defense groups until one comes out on top. And if we’re going to agree that humans are bad enough to avoid providing them with vertical power structures, we absolutely cannot wave away that people would behave any better under any other system.
Maybe we’re using different definitions of exile. As I know it, in means physically kicking them out of an area and its social structure. I can imagine heavy resistance to that. If it’s just cutting somebody off from systems, I really don’t see the difference between killing somebody with violence vs starving them or similar. If it’s just ostracizing them, I don’t see how a social punishment is a deterrent to antisocial behavior.
As for global problems just requiring concerned individuals to use force, I can’t imagine a few individuals forcing the whole world off fossil fuels, for example.
Oh, I didn’t try to shame anyone. Apologies if it looked like it. To answer your question:
Do horizontal power structures mean most people could ignore how they’re impacting others negatively? If not, how would that be handled on a global scale?
My answer to that would be: In order for horizontal power, we need to radically rethink how people are connected to each other in the first place. The root issue here isn’t that decentralized systems can’t coordinate, it’s that they require a different kind of infrastructure to do it. In a pandemic scenario, that could look like local health councils making decisions based on conditions on the ground, real-time, open data-sharing across regions, resource pooling to get masks, meds, or food where they’re needed and ideally cultural norm of collective care (not just individual freedom).
On the climate front, it’s obviously more complex, but the same principles apply. If people are embedded in local systems of stewardship where the land and water is shared and monitored by the people who depend on them, you’re much more likely to see sustainable behavior. And if those communities are networked across bioregions, then broader ecological decisions can be coordinated without a single coercive authority calling the shots.
I’m not saying any of this is easy, especially from where we are now. But I don’t think we need to scale control to meet global crises. I think we need to scale cooperation and that’s where horizontal system actually have a chance to shine.
I understand it would take radically different structures, but in the pandemic example, what happens when the next local group decides to not participate in mutual care? Could it still work without magically making humans better than they are?
in the pandemic example, what happens when the next local group decides to not participate in mutual care?
Some entire countries essentially did that. They responded carelessly and slow, and experienced harsher consequences as a result. Nobody can stop a group of people from getting themselves hurt. Sure, one can try to help them once they are hurt, if some resources remain available for that.
I guess my point is not that groups can harm themselves, but that they can (and did) harm others in this particular scenario.
I believe most people aren’t bad actors. But also, most people can see what is good for them. And cooperatives prove that people can run with it to their advantage.
David Graeber made a very good point that the concept of money is only necessary for war. Take money out of the equation and the next local group will have to stretch to avoid mutual care.
most people can see what’s good for them
Counterpoints: smoking and other addictions, results of recent US election, propaganda and advertising working
As for money, it’s a technology that can act as a value store. I don’t think getting rid of it is a realistic idea until we’ve got Star Trek levels of tech.
Might makes right is always the problem, whether you’re talking about anarchy, or hierarchy, or some kind of distributed system - some actor will use force to inflict harm for their own benefit (in contrast to inflicting harm to defend others). I believe the study of human history tells us that this always happens, it is not preventable. So the question becomes, how do we build systems that can protect people from harm without concentrating power that may itself be abused?
- Expecting everyone to protect themselves is not a viable option. That way lies barbarism, where the weak are left to perish.
- I’m very open to ideas about resisting force with something other than equivalent force, but I’m not sure what that would actually look like in practice. What do you do when the bandits show up in town and start shooting and looting, other than shoot back?
If you diffuse power horizontally, there is no vacuum to fill. There’s just shared responsibility.
I’ll just point out, this was the original concept behind the US Constitution. Whether it’s worked as intended is… debatable.
We keep us safe. Defense against bad actors is everyone’s resposibility. The kid who runs off with the ball doesn’t get invited to play anymore. I don’t know where the idea anarchists are pascifist comes from, but the answer is shoot back. No Gods, no masters.
I’ll just point out, this was the original concept behind the US Constitution. Whether it’s worked as intended is… debatable.
A quick note on the U.S. Constitution: it’s sometimes framed as an attempt to diffuse power horizontally, but that’s not really accurate. The U.S. already had a decentralized system at the time, the Articles of Confederation. And the Constitution was created explicitly to centralize federal power in response to elite fears of uprisings like Shays’ Rebellion. It didn’t introduce shared responsibility; it replaced a fragile form of it with a much stronger central government.
So while it may have used the language of distributed power (checks and balances, separation of powers, etc.), it wasn’t about horizontalism in the sense that I meant. It was about stabilizing and legitimizing state authority which is a very different project.
Regarding your question: What would we do when bandits show up in a town and start shooting and looting, other than shoot back?
…Realistically, I don’t believe we wouldn’t shoot back. But in my eyes that’s already an extreme case of power concentrating, which I firmly believe is preventable before it even occurs. When violence does erupt, collective defense is necessary. But the difference is whether we wait until that crisis point (where power has already centralized in dangerous hands) or whether we create resilient, horizontal networks that make it far harder for any one group or individual to monopolize force and exploit others.
So yes, we defend ourselves when necessary, but the real work is done long before the shooting starts.
Edit: The goal is to build social systems that reduce the conditions enabling those “bandits” to emerge in the first place. Through strong community bonds, mutual aid, shared responsibility, and mechanisms for accountability that keep narcissistic or violent individuals from gaining influence or forming armed factions.
There’s also always people willing to fix it for others too
Yup! Humans being imperfect is an argument against hierarchical power structures. How can we keep a few narcissists, bad actors, or even well-meaning but mistaken folks from causing bad outcomes for society? By getting rid of their ability to wield power. If you believe that power corrupts, then the answer to that is to distribute it so evenly and thinly that no one can accumulate institutional power. That’s why bottom-up decision making methods are better than top-down ones.
Unfortunately, lots of hierarchical systems are built into the fabric of our societies. Capitalism is a big one. Private property is an even more foundational one. Various kinds of bigotry rest on those systems. The authoritarian state will take whatever excuse it can (religious justifications, property-protection justifications, enemies-at-the-gates justifications, etc) to exercise power over society. So our struggle should ultimately be aimed at those things.
Finding ways to (1) give people the time, material security, and consciousness to organize together to change their lives for the better (tenant unions, labor unions, community-run non-police safety programs, etc); (2) decommodify essentials like food, shelter, clothing, etc; and (3) help populations learn to govern themselves at the local level and federate with others; would all go a very long way.
Look for lessons from existing and recent struggles. Anarchist Spain, the Zapatistas, and others have much to teach us.
To preface, I’m a Marxist and not an Anarchist, our frameworks differ substantially.
I agree that “but what about bad actors” criticism is quite bad, but for different reasons. They don’t “spawn in” out of nowhere and ruin systems, the opposite is the case - it’s the system that produces them through inequalities, ideology and reward mechanisms. Capitalism rewards antisocial, domineering behavior because competition, capital and power accumulation demands it in order to “be successful”. This is something inherent to the system and its structures, not something you can fix simply by moral policing, so focusing just on the individual is a mistake.
The vertical power structures like the state aren’t there merely for individual power hoarding, but rather it’s a structure of class domination - the bourgeoisie control over proletariat. Enforcement and protection of private property (such as factories/company offices/other means of production), legal systems controlling who gets into power and what they can change, education and media promoting the status quo are but a few examples of this. The state isn’t merely there to preserve itself, it’s there to preserve the capitalist system.
To touch up on some of your questions you have at the bottom, and be warned that this will be somewhat anti-anarchistic:
After a successful revolution, bourgeoisie fall and people cheer in the streets. What now, do we go full horizontal hierarchy mode and decentralize? The truth of the matter is that post-revolutionary period is incredibly volatile (as seen by the fact that most revolutions happened in cascades) and faces a multitude of immediate issues, such as: 1. The previous ruling class trying to get themselves back into power again via counter-revolution or armed uprisings using their resources and connections, be it foreign or internal. 2. The need to overcome capitalist commodity production and reorganize it into planned production to satisfy human and economic needs (aka socialist mode of production). 3. Defense against foreign capitalist threats who would love to get more land/resources or major political influence via coup. 4. The need to spread the revolution internationally, as a country that doesn’t operate under capitalist mode of production simply cannot survive in a global capitalist world (can elaborate on this if anyone cares, don’t want this wall of text to be too long).
Decentralized horizontal systems are quite detrimental when it comes to solving these immediate issues - it fragments authority, decision making, delays responses to armed insurrections, foreign invasions and production reorganization. You need quick, decisive action during a revolutionary period or collapse follows even before “bad actors” become a problem.
The working class must seize state power - whether through a vanguard party, council republic, or equivalent to suppress the bourgeoisie, defend the revolution, and transition from capitalist commodity production towards planned economies to satisfy needs. Of course, the state must fulfill the immediate goals to no longer become necessary and for the state to wither away in a timely manner - else, and I agree with Anarchists here, the revolution will degenerate (into red bourgeois states) usually with the help of ‘bad actors’, as seen with USSR and China.
Also as a short addendum, comparing societies of today to primitive egalitarian horizontal societies is an error - these societies operated under radically different productive forces, population scales and social complexity, production was localized and individualistic. Today’s production is inherently social, large-scale and global, requiring entirely different forms of coordination and past forms simply cannot be revived or even be compared.
Very good and complete answer as usually, that said this is one of my main problems with left ideologies that think hierarchies are necessary even for a limited time, the people in power like to stay it power. As the saying goes:
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I have strong doubts that the people in charge will just give up power once it comes to that, and sadly most experiments with communism/socialism (in Eurasian at least) lead exactly to that.
Yeah, this is one of the differences between anarchists and communists I doubt we’d ever find agreement on due to the nature of our views. Anarchists reject the notion of power altogether, while Marxists don’t deny that power can entrench itself but attempts to explain why and under what historical and material conditions it can be overcome.
I have strong doubts that the people in charge will just give up power once it comes to that, and sadly most experiments with communism/socialism (in Eurasian at least) lead exactly to that.
To be clear, my intention isn’t to defend the past socialist experiments as seen in my original comment, but using them as examples where people in charge refused to give up power misunderstands theory and history. The countries were never in position to “give up power”, as they didn’t ever reach a point where state became unnecessary, and there are reasons for that.
If you look at a country like post-revolution USSR, the country was agrarian with vast peasant majority. The productive forces were far from developed to properly transition into socialist mode of production and meet everyone’s needs, which is one of the purposes of the centralized state, and this is something that would have taken a really long time given their productive capacity. Lenin and Bolsheviks did try to go for an international revolution angle in hopes they would escape this predicament, but they failed, leaving USSR isolated, forcing it to adopt capitalist markets and then quickly degenerating due to opportunism and the ‘bad actors’ the system inevitably creates over time as leadership changes.
Marxists such as myself would argue that USSR was doomed from the start due to their material conditions at the time unless they could have found success internationally. This is something that Anarchism wouldn’t resolve - decentralization in an undeveloped, isolated and hostile environment would weaken defense, cripple the development of productive forces and very likely would have lead to an accelerated collapse.
Also apologies - I can’t help but write unreadable walls of text.
I do see your point, and I can’t argue that so far communists have greater success in creating and maintaining states against outside influence be it economic or military.
No need to apologize for the walls they are well structured.
