anarchism acknowledges Marxist theory, but rejects the need for a state/beaurocratic apparatus, as it is considered to be fundamentally oppressive.
the state is an abstraction of capital, and cannot liberate the working class, as it exists to perpetuate its own hegemonic existence, our subjugation.
governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.
can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools
governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.
I don't. I don't think all hierarchies are unjust, I evaluate them based on their effect on the world. If a hierarchy can solve a problem better, it's the preferable solution.
Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you?
But what if we all have a different idea of what behaving reasonably means?
Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible.
That's silly. Systemic inequalities don't make people park their vehicles on the bike path or murder their wife because they think she cheated on them. If anarchism is all about thinking people are angels unless bad, bad oppressive systems make them do evil things they couldn't do on their own then I don't think we'll ever get along. It's alternate reality and an incredibly naive way of looking at the world and human nature.
Edit: could you kindly not respond to this? I don't have an option to silence this thread on my end, and don't want to hear about it any further.
Edit: could you kindly not respond to this? I don't have an option to silence this thread on my end, and don't want to hear about it any further.
So I have to ask... Why would you respond and then deny someone the same respect?
I wanted to mute this conversation but couldn't. They could always modify their comment or respond to themselves and not give me any notifications. I just didn't want to discuss this at the moment.
But they did try to convince me of the virtue of anarchism and it's compatibility with Marxism, so I thought I would at least put out some of the reasons I don't like anarchism so that my first terse comment isn't misunderstood as me not knowing what anarchism is and rejecting it on that basis.
I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.
In practice, direct democracy? Or, how would that work - how would we organize society?
Positions would still need to be held, no? Roles appointed, decisions made, lines drawn. No one can be up-to-date on all matters in their local nor global environment. And certainly not at the same point in time. How would anything work with any cohesiveness?
Sorry to be so dismissive, I'm actually kinda curious on your thoughts. Only ways I see are AI governance or a hive mind. Not sure about either tbh.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you
anarchism acknowledges Marxist theory, but rejects the need for a state/beaurocratic apparatus, as it is considered to be fundamentally oppressive.
the state is an abstraction of capital, and cannot liberate the working class, as it exists to perpetuate its own hegemonic existence, our subjugation.
governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.
can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools
I don't. I don't think all hierarchies are unjust, I evaluate them based on their effect on the world. If a hierarchy can solve a problem better, it's the preferable solution.
But what if we all have a different idea of what behaving reasonably means?
That's silly. Systemic inequalities don't make people park their vehicles on the bike path or murder their wife because they think she cheated on them. If anarchism is all about thinking people are angels unless bad, bad oppressive systems make them do evil things they couldn't do on their own then I don't think we'll ever get along. It's alternate reality and an incredibly naive way of looking at the world and human nature.
Edit: could you kindly not respond to this? I don't have an option to silence this thread on my end, and don't want to hear about it any further.
So I have to ask... Why would you respond and then deny someone the same respect?
I wanted to mute this conversation but couldn't. They could always modify their comment or respond to themselves and not give me any notifications. I just didn't want to discuss this at the moment.
But they did try to convince me of the virtue of anarchism and it's compatibility with Marxism, so I thought I would at least put out some of the reasons I don't like anarchism so that my first terse comment isn't misunderstood as me not knowing what anarchism is and rejecting it on that basis.
In practice, direct democracy? Or, how would that work - how would we organize society? Positions would still need to be held, no? Roles appointed, decisions made, lines drawn. No one can be up-to-date on all matters in their local nor global environment. And certainly not at the same point in time. How would anything work with any cohesiveness?
Sorry to be so dismissive, I'm actually kinda curious on your thoughts. Only ways I see are AI governance or a hive mind. Not sure about either tbh.