Hacker News Reader

Comment by nailer | Hacker News Reader

(Confession: I'm on a lunch break, and have not sat through the hour plus documentary - so pardon me if it already addresses this point)

In democracy (imperfect as it may be) we get to elect people who choose laws and thus authorize violence only in mandated situations.

Without rules - including law - is all violence permitted?

Edit: from the book review: "Chomsky's anarchism emphasizes the power of collective, rather than individualist, action."

So people come together as collectives, which represent them? Would these collectives presumably agree on some standards? And enforce them? Isn't that democracy?

View on HN

A common misconception about anarchism is that it means an absence of rules and laws. Instead, the various flavors of anarchism propose models for distributed, bottom-up authority and decision-making.

Statism : 90s Microsoft :: Anarchism : Web Standards

> Statism : 90s Microsoft :: Anarchism : Web Standards

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but Web Standards are mandated by the W3C, which I don't see as an anarchistic organization, but more as an extended oligarchy.

To participate, an organization (from what I found, individuals cannot join) needs at least 1950.00 EUR per year.[1]

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees

I'm not criticizing W3C per se, just the fact that it's being compared to an anarchist way of doing things.

Hm, I didn't know that. Nonetheless, I feel the analogy stands somewhat; decisions are at least partially made via participatory consensus rather than from one entity by fiat. There's also the WHATWG, which is much more democratic, and which has been very influential in the ongoing standards process.

Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be ICANN vs. NameCoin; however in that case, the anarchist solution is far less proven. ;)

Web Standards are only useful becasue people agree on them and utilize them. There is no mechanism for enforcement or ordering, just the majority rule essentially.

it depends on your definition of anarchism. it isn't necessarily lawlessness as much as a lack of hierarchical power structures. radical flatness.

I like flatter power structures too. But I think this is better summed up as 'direct representation' or 'direct democracy' rather than 'anarchism' - regardless of the benefit of these ideas, too many people who believe in violence and seizing of others property loudly proclaim themselves 'anarchists' for anyone with more reasonable views to be able to 'claim back' the term.

> too many people who believe in violence and seizing of others property loudly proclaim themselves 'anarchists'

Just like people committing computer fraud call themselves hackers.

The fact that fraudsters (and media, as is the case with both 'hacker' and 'anarchist') use the term wrongly doesn't diminish the original and correct meaning that dates back to the 19th century.

I think the analogy's spot on, but that it /does/ diminish the original meaning.

Eg, I don't call myself a 'hacker' around people who aren't geeks because I know it will be misinterpreted, and additionally people who think that definition is a good thing will want to associate with me.

This gets round to the comment I wanted to make about the whole topic: Anarchism is a word that closes people's minds and should not be used to try to promote some better system of organization or community.

Can you imagine people trying to encourage community and a family unit by trying to bring back Skinhead culture? Try as you might to explain its positive, non-racial origins, people just associate it with neo-naziism. And though I acknowledge Anarchism can be a productive form of collective organizing, if I see somebody with a torn jacket with a circled A patch on it, I think that person's a jackass.

Maybe I'm only biased because I only know 'real' anarchists and 'real' skin-heads, so when I hear these terms I don't think about the negative connotation.

Still I think the right way to overcome this is spreading information, not changing name.

How can you spread information if there's a huge barrier in front of you?

Most people don't want to change their carefully-guarded vision of the world around them. If they already associate your movement with imagery of chaotic lawlessness they're not going to stop and listen to you on the off chance they might be misinformed. They're going to write you off immediately and go on with their life.

On the other hand, if you make a compromise and reform your presentation of ideas in a new way, people will be more likely to stop and listen. It's not enough to simply have a good idea; you have to sell it to them, too.

Maybe somewhere in-between? I could present my ideas without labeling them and once people have listened to me I drop the bomb "Oh, by the way, this is what anarchism is all about". Could it work?

It is a common misconception to label Anarchy as a society without any rules or social norms.

That would be Anomie. (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie)

Edit:

> So people come together as collectives, which represent them? Would these collectives presumably agree on some standards? And enforce them? Isn't that democracy?

Yes, but in the US you have a representative democracy where you vote for some party which then makes changes or introduces new laws without asking you or anybody else.

In an anarchy you would not only be asked to vote on rules, you could actively take part on the creation of new rules.

You cannot make blanked claims such as this. There are dozens of different types of anarchy ranging from socialistic anarchism to free market anarchism. Voting may or may not be part of the anarchist experience.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com