The nice thing about anarchism is you don't have to wait for society to collapse. We can start practicing it now and let it grow from there.
The Zapatistas didn't wait for society to collapse, and neither should we! š„°
Yeah, I think I just don't have faith in anyone or any institution anymore.
The leftists are morons who will end up siding with fascists cause they think the breaking of the system means they will win and people will care... Stupid. And we have seen historically what that looks like.
Capitalists just can't back off sucking their own dick to realize they are heading down a path that doesn't end well.
Christo-fascists still think they are being oppressed so they have to oppress first.
I actually believe in rules and like some organization but there is not a lot of people that want to be reasonable anymore. Got to figure out who to grift too and I don't like playing. So, I'm gonna live in a city center. Hope we throw bombs so I go out early in the blast and just get to enjoy the fall.
The leftists are morons who will end up siding with fascists cause they think the breaking of the system means they will win and people will careā¦ Stupid.
Accelerationism is what you're talking about, and its widely rejected on the left for exactly the reasons you bring up. It doesn't work. It only makes things worse for the working class. Even if the revolution does happen, there's no guarantee that what comes out the other side is actually better.
There's a lot of overlap with tankies and accelerationism. They're loud, but they aren't numerous, and also tend to get kicked out of all the other leftist groups.
Yeah, from any experience I have with actual, real life āleftistsā itās that theyāre by and large exceedingly normal people who are very willing to likeā¦ politely sit in on the local dems meeting because everyone involved knows thereās about an 80% overlap in desired policy.
āTankiesā are more like people role-playing a particular ideology, in the same spirit that new ātrad catholicā people are largely just role playing weather they know it or not, and most of them grow out of it by 25 or so. Exceedingly few of these people actually practice these views in any significant way in the real world.
Yeah, accelerationism is actually what I am referring to but it's spreading.
It's rejected in some spaces and overly welcome in others. The issue is staunch belief in self right tends to mean there is a lack of joined support except for specific groups with easily shared identity.
I've been banned from "entry" leftist spaces that are not considered tankie spaces because I questioned the use of spreading GOP propaganda pieces and the general consensus is shifting towards letting it burn which comes with all the dangers of the working class being roasted alive.
It is probably true that they make up a smaller percentage but are making up most of the vocal conversations at this point. And they aren't just in small spaces.
Honestly I think it's actually right wing groups doing this push trying to get more leftists to consider a loss by the Democrats in the US as the victory needed to get more leftists in power. Which is absolutely not how that would go. But it does seem to be working in groups that are neither silent nor very small. And it's a shocking amount of the conversation.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with anarchism. Fascism, capitalism, statehood, and hierarchies are categorically incompatible with anarchism, and I don't know anyone who thinks we should just recklessly throw bombs and hope for the best. I feel like these "leftists" you're referring to are entirely made out of straw, and the history you're talking about refers, I believe, to authoritarian communist regimes like the USSR and China, while ignoring that there are examples of successful communities that could be considered anarchist. Maybe they're harder to spot because they by definition don't involve statehood. I provided one example in my comment, but there are others.
Anarchism is about literally believing in no structure needed for society. Yeah I understand that any kind of system is incompatible but that also means it's a free for all. So nothing to stop anyone from throwing bombs. Or enslaving children or adults or anything else for that matter. Might would prove right and mighty will come for their pound of flesh from everyone else. Anarchy is anarchy, it won't come without awfulness.
And for the leftists. I'm referring to the ones that use right wing slang, call the US Blue party "Demo-KKK-rats" say that helping anyone as a Democrat is akin to helping a fascist anyways. The idiots who spout all kinds of nonsense that really doesn't actually help anyone but checks to see if you agree completely with them and means they will be isolated and without popular support.
And actually I am referring to Nazis since they ran on calling themselves socialist and supporting the people only to have the leaders who just wanted power to scrap the concept for conquest. No country is anarchist because then they couldn't have rules to consider themselves a country.
Anarchism isn't even a leftist ideology it's straight up off the chart because the only way it works is if you don't care about anyone or anything else. And sure is a lot easier to think that way then accept that it's dumb.
You are completely wrong about what constitutes anarchism. In fact, although there are different anarchist theories, some of the things you cite are incompatible with any form of anarchism. For example, enslavement is objectively hierarchical and impossible to reconcile with anarchism of any form, as is capitalism, as is bombing someone to force them to do your will. You are parroting anti-anarchist propaganda. I'd encourage you to read up on this.
Anarchist communities definitely have structure. It's just that the structure is horizontal, so to someone who's immersed in our hierarchical society, it may be confused for disorder.
No country is anarchist
Clap clap! Now you're understanding! There can be no state, correct.
because then they couldn't have rules to consider themselves a country
It depends on what you mean by "rules." Certainly, oppression is categorically not permitted under anarchism, nor any form of enslavement or exploitation. You can certainly have agreed upon guidelines and roles in your community. Anarchy isn't the absence of rules, but rather the absence of hierarchies and a state. Anarchist communities usually have ways of ensuring liberty for all, and may use measures like diffuse sanctions or even exile from the community in extreme cases.
Edit: Might I add that to me it seems like anarchism is the most considerate, empathetic philosophies. I'm not sure why you think it's just thoughtless, because it's not. It encourages things like mutual aid and comraderie.
LOL holy shit dude.
No one would own slaves in an anarchist system because some nerd explained that "technically that adds a heirarchy in our society and we don't have tiers of personhood"?
Tell that to the guy with the guns and chains.
No one cares about the textbook definition in real anarchy. They care about getting what they want. And if you don't have rules to bind people to your side to resist them then your ideals of anarchy are useless. You must destroy the concept of the individual to obtain a version of anarchy that works and the first outsider to realize this and use it will undoubtedly ruin the project.
Anarchy works as a system in the mind and on paper, but less so when an individual decides they don't care because they are born with sociopathic tendencies and realize there is no place for themselves other than what they make.
The absence of a state just makes it more likely to collapse in on itself when the fighting starts and people trying to protect themselves throw others under the bus.
You can't say total freedom from labels and structure of a system but then say "oh but don't do anything that might hurt that." People have already latched onto the first part. Anarchy works on lly in theory or as an eventual free-for-all until someone comes up with rules which ends the anarchy.
I don't even know where to start because you are basing this on a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what anarchism is. Anarchism does work. I'd encourage you to read that book I linked, at least the introduction.
I'd also recommend reading "Mutual Aid" by Peter Kropotkin. The ugly traits like greed you reference are greatly exacerbated by our unjust and oppressive society. No species survives without mutual aid.
Anarchism is fundamentally incompatible with fascism, capitalism, and other unjust and oppressive systems. The fascist with whips and chains won't cease because some nerd explains anarchism -- he will cease because he will he yeeted if he persists in harming others for his own personal gain.
Please read something. Or listen. I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but you are very, very ignorant.
And you are coming from an emphatic and emotionally charged perspective. You have an ideology you want to be true.
You claim that this system is great and holds up, but it's like an ice cube. It stays as it is fine until you put it in the ocean.
The system nor the people are ever as perfect as desired in the thought experiment and in reality it cracks and melts to the force of reality. The same way that laissez-faire economic policy does not lead to shared collective wealth. It only works till one person decides they want to take more and if they get others to agree then it's over.
So how is it that this perfect ideology doesn't work with any of the systems you don't like but just so happens to perfeclty fit in with one that is favored by you? You have an emotional attachment to the concept working which means all the minor flaws can be overlooked for the joy it will bring. Anyone can pull up someone who has written ad nauseum about their idea of how it should all work but we are bound by the rules of reality and we have data to work from. That is where we find actual systems to work from.
I'm not malinformed, I just don't agree with your ideology as I see the flaws inherent to them. I can see the paradox and the reality and nature of humans. At best there will be instances of oppression happening in small scale or even the familial level and when it can not be squashed it will erode at the system the pretends to believe everyone is just and that the flaws can be fixed through joint agreement as everyone will obviously agree with their idea of sanity.
We are all in the insane asylum. None of us share reality, and unlocking the doors and expecting everyone to play nice is hopeful at best.
Again, I'd encourage you to start by understanding what constitutes anarchism. If you want to argue that it won't work, then fine, but this version of anarchism you've concocted in your mind doesn't match with what any anarchists have ever claimed. No one merely expects everyone to play nice, and nothing about anarchist theory relies on human nature being perfect. It can and does work in spite of our human flaws.
What it does claim is that traits like mutual aid and cooperation are suppressed in an unjust system, and that these things are just as much present in humans as are harmful traits like competition or war.
Please read up on what anarchism is. It's impossible to have a discussion about something totally fabricated and baseless.
Understanding your desired definition of anarchism
A definition you value because it says that humans will be enterely helpful to each other the moment they are freed from the system you personally do not like (even if for valid reasons). There does not seem to be a lack of charity funds available and yet there is also no lack of people skimming from them.
You are saying my definition doesn't mesh with others when all you point to is that of a couple individuals as well that you respect more than me. You can't even hear my side of the argument without dismissing it because that is the nature of humans.
It's impossible to also have a conversation with you as you insist holding onto your perspective because it's what you brain is trained to do. It's the way humans protect themselves and it's why a singular self perceived idea of reality never works because it lacks the nuance of realizing others are here that do not share these thoughts.
You are correct in this being a waste of time but for the wrong reasons. And also likely why neither of us will have a victory in this ever. Ever. The best we can hope for is to accept and modify reality not change it.
Again, anarchism does not claim that we will abruptly end society and everyone will immediately cooperate. Anarchism does not rely on people being perfect. Anarchism is not the absence of rules (though the term "rules" may not be uses, since it implies connection to a hierarchical system).
You are using a false definition of anarchism, based on anti-anarchist misinformation and propaganda. You make as much sense as the "anarcho" capitalists. You think it means no rules, no guidelines, no societal roles.
Read up on the Zapatistas. There you will find a good example of an anarchist community at work. Even my non-profit, though not purely anarchist, adopts many of its principles, such as that of horizontality.
Good day to you. It seems you need more time to reflect and learn from what I've said. Honestly understandable -- sometimes these forums seem to inherently encourage hostility and doubling down in spite of oneself, and I think you'll come to know that what I'm saying is accurate once you've had some time to mull this over and maybe click some of those links I gave you.
I think you'll come to know that what I'm saying is accurate once you've had some time to mull this over
Wow you self absorbed narcissist. You are right everyone else is wrong. And clearly it's because you are the only one with a right answer. Show me you didn't actually read anything I wrote harder. I hope one day you truly can comprehend what it means to be wrong and maybe you can catch a glimpse of reality once.
This is ahistorical. Leftists have always fought fascists, when revealed to be fascists. Typically it's the liberals and social democrats who side with fascists, like what happened in Nazi Germany.
Go look up the phrase āAfter Hitler, our turn!ā And report back with your learnings from actual history.
Right??? SpongeBob below, that's some hard revisionism to say that was just them liberals and not us left leaning liberals that did that!
Aye. Meanwhile, the SPD fought the SA in street fights and invented the three arrows symbol.
Say what you will about the effectiveness of reformism (or rather, its near-total absence), but the succdems at least resisted. The Stalinists, meanwhile, called them "social fascists" and cooperated with actual fascists to fight against them.
They said leftists, not Stalinists
When revealed is doing a lot of heavy lifting there and even then that is not entirely accurate to the reality of the situation. There isn't a unified response just the people likely to still be fighting against authoritarianism at any point are likely going to be left leaning in the spectrum by nature of their dissatisfaction of the current system. And even then the fighting force is generally not the leftists but the allies on other parts of the spectrum that they gain.
It's not like an Isolationist country was super excited to fight against fascism, just seemed like the right path forward with coaxing.
The issue is that leftism is incompatible with fascism. Not that leftists can't be bad or evil, they can, but leftism itself cannot coexist with fascism. However, liberalism leads to fascism eventually, and social Democracy is still fundamentally a Capitalist ideology, and is just as easy to corrupt into fascism as shown in Nazi Germany.
As compared to how hard it is to corrupt leftism into Stalinism?
Well, of course my ideology would rise from the ashes. I'm the main character!
Yes you are, I confirmed this with the developers.
Smooth brain accelerationism
It's like "I'm a momentary embarrassed millionaire", but apocalypse edition.
Oh absolutely everyone thinks they are gonna be leader of the ashes just look at all the stupid tech bros who are sure they would be ok in an apocalypse.
I mean someone is gonna be the next Alexander the Great of the ashes probably so for 1 person they are right but the odds aren't in our favor.
for anarchists at least it's more "maybe we can have a stateless community when there aren't a bunch of people with guns who very much want us to not have a stateless community"
canāt wait for the tuxpunk future
I'm torn between the Calico Caliphate and the Tortie Theocracy..
Heads up, the Stray States won't tolerate cups and mugs hanging dangerously close to tables
tuxpunkists when the xeniaist retro xeniaism appears:
No one's utopia rises from the ashes of a collapsed society. Usually collapse is followed by a run of short-lived autocrats, until one of them (or a coalition) sees the trend and is determined not to be the next dead dictator. They then create a constitution and none of them are elected as the executive.
By then everyone is desperate for some quiet, and no one really cares to be king anymore. (Cromwell was unique in handing the theone of England back to a family with some royal legitimacy, but that was before the ideals of the enlightenment.)
What we haven't tried yet is crafting an ironclad constitution before or during the violence. Were I not a depressed misanthrope with no organization skills, I might have developed an online website that tracked the constitutions of the world (as cross-translated as possible) and made workshops for hypothetical clauses, such as ranked-choice US presidential elections won by popular vote. The point would be to make a site where fledgling states could hammer out ironclad constitutional clauses toward an actual public-serving state. Sadly, I'm pathetic and didn't do this. And no one else has either.
The more prepared grassroots movements are before the collapse, the less churn of warlords the state has to suffer during the aftermath.
Note that corporations, rich masterminds and foreign interests will still offer finances and materiel to shills to take over and serve as a ruthless puppet dictator. These will be your most difficult adversaries. The DPRK shows us how bad that can get.
Anarchism is about building from the ground up with mutual aid organizations, which create the infrastructure that will support labor unions, community service orgs and other public serving interests. Since these serve as a sneak attack on elite-serving establishment, accelleration doesn't help them, though mutual aid will help neighborhoods survive when the collapse comes.
I wouldn't mind some anarcho communism by someone that knows more about how to make laws than me
Too bad, you're getting totalitarian theocracy for the post-apocalypse and you'll like it! (They literally crucify you if you don't)
Not againš
Caesar's Legion is dangerously popular in certain crowds
anarcho communism
Well first you would probably have to get rid of one of those words since you can't have anarchy and rules.
Anarcho-Communism is one of the most popular forms of Anarchism, and Anarchism has rules, just not authority or hierarchy. It's a horizontal organizational structure, not the absence of all structure.
Aye. A slogan I've occasionally heard is "rule without rulers".
You can have mutually agreed upon rules and structure in anarchism. "The Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin explains the theory behind anarcho-communism pretty well. I'm not aware of any form of anarchism that doesn't have rules in some form. At the very least, you'd have the "rule" against hierarchies, otherwise you wouldn't have anarchism.
Which makes it sound like anarchy is a concept that can't be applied the the real world as there will always be rules. So without changing the base definition of anarchy, any other offshoot is by nature of the requirement of rules,
Not Anarchism.
Seems it would be best to come up with a system with defined rules that allow for freedoms and just call it what is and not rely on the hype that is "anarchy" to sell. Otherwise please remind me what state charter Peter Kropotkin wrote or what governing body of a state rules with Anarchy as their leading principle? Somalia ended their civil war over this so I can't think of one can you?
And yes I understand that there is sub groups practicing but using the protection that is offered by operating inside of a state should not count.
Anarchism is the absence of hierarchies, not the absence of rules. There are very much thriving anarchist communities and agencies among us, even if they don't use the term "anarchist."
Communism is defined as "a stateless, classless society." This too is anarchism.
Communism is a state of anarchy. If someone told you different, they were wrong.
I don't know that it's workable, but self-described communists have always seen statelessness as a goal. They differ mainly in if there should be intermediate steps or if we should jump straight into it.
Anarchist Communism has no real life example to even look at and remains entirely as a school of thought philosophical dream because it's a paradox of definitions. It's simply impossible to be with and without structure.
You can have limited rules and have individualistic agency and issues that arise with it, or defined rules with specific limitations that define the agency while still giving social agency but it does not equate to them being synonymous.
Also the party that pushed for this state system dissolved after only 12 years due to infighting on the nature of how it would work. The answer being that the ideologies don't work in practice.
Not exactly right it's still kind of a democracy
Anarcho-communism, also known as anarchist communism, is the belief that hierarchies, money, and social classes should not exist, and that the means of production should be held in common by society. Anarcho-communists support direct democracy and a network of voluntary associations, workers' councils, decentralized economic planning and a gift economy in which everyone will be free to satisfy their needs.
It starts with one person that knows about it, then it becomes a long running game of Nomic and nobody has any clue what the fuck the law is supposed to be anymore.
Don't care what happens after, I just need at least a month break from work where I won't be penalized
Apocalypse sounds better than capitalism tbh
Pallas's cat president!
Maxwell has my vote
I can't wait for society to collapse so I can die in peace
Anarcho-* in a nutshell
Oh hey look the comments are full of these cats apparently.
That's right everyone your personal favorite utopia is the only one that is gonna be correct. All you have to do is believe in it super hard and be completely unwilling to change even a fraction of your belief and I guarantee you that that utopia that you are thinking about in your head is gonna be the only one that was right!
But remember only if you completely believe in Santa your after civilization society, will you get the present you wanted so tell anyone doubting you, that they are a fucking liar and don't know what's best for them or everyone else so they need to fuck off till they see it your way!
For society of course.
P.S. one group has that idea already and they have a lot more members than yours.
The four posadists with differing views are not ready for the collapse
The nice thing about anarchism is you don't have to wait for society to collapse. We can start practicing it now and let it grow from there.
The Zapatistas didn't wait for society to collapse, and neither should we! š„°
Yeah, I think I just don't have faith in anyone or any institution anymore.
The leftists are morons who will end up siding with fascists cause they think the breaking of the system means they will win and people will care... Stupid. And we have seen historically what that looks like. Capitalists just can't back off sucking their own dick to realize they are heading down a path that doesn't end well.
Christo-fascists still think they are being oppressed so they have to oppress first.
I actually believe in rules and like some organization but there is not a lot of people that want to be reasonable anymore. Got to figure out who to grift too and I don't like playing. So, I'm gonna live in a city center. Hope we throw bombs so I go out early in the blast and just get to enjoy the fall.
Accelerationism is what you're talking about, and its widely rejected on the left for exactly the reasons you bring up. It doesn't work. It only makes things worse for the working class. Even if the revolution does happen, there's no guarantee that what comes out the other side is actually better.
There's a lot of overlap with tankies and accelerationism. They're loud, but they aren't numerous, and also tend to get kicked out of all the other leftist groups.
Yeah, from any experience I have with actual, real life āleftistsā itās that theyāre by and large exceedingly normal people who are very willing to likeā¦ politely sit in on the local dems meeting because everyone involved knows thereās about an 80% overlap in desired policy.
āTankiesā are more like people role-playing a particular ideology, in the same spirit that new ātrad catholicā people are largely just role playing weather they know it or not, and most of them grow out of it by 25 or so. Exceedingly few of these people actually practice these views in any significant way in the real world.
Yeah, accelerationism is actually what I am referring to but it's spreading.
It's rejected in some spaces and overly welcome in others. The issue is staunch belief in self right tends to mean there is a lack of joined support except for specific groups with easily shared identity.
I've been banned from "entry" leftist spaces that are not considered tankie spaces because I questioned the use of spreading GOP propaganda pieces and the general consensus is shifting towards letting it burn which comes with all the dangers of the working class being roasted alive.
It is probably true that they make up a smaller percentage but are making up most of the vocal conversations at this point. And they aren't just in small spaces.
Honestly I think it's actually right wing groups doing this push trying to get more leftists to consider a loss by the Democrats in the US as the victory needed to get more leftists in power. Which is absolutely not how that would go. But it does seem to be working in groups that are neither silent nor very small. And it's a shocking amount of the conversation.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with anarchism. Fascism, capitalism, statehood, and hierarchies are categorically incompatible with anarchism, and I don't know anyone who thinks we should just recklessly throw bombs and hope for the best. I feel like these "leftists" you're referring to are entirely made out of straw, and the history you're talking about refers, I believe, to authoritarian communist regimes like the USSR and China, while ignoring that there are examples of successful communities that could be considered anarchist. Maybe they're harder to spot because they by definition don't involve statehood. I provided one example in my comment, but there are others.
Anarchism is about literally believing in no structure needed for society. Yeah I understand that any kind of system is incompatible but that also means it's a free for all. So nothing to stop anyone from throwing bombs. Or enslaving children or adults or anything else for that matter. Might would prove right and mighty will come for their pound of flesh from everyone else. Anarchy is anarchy, it won't come without awfulness.
And for the leftists. I'm referring to the ones that use right wing slang, call the US Blue party "Demo-KKK-rats" say that helping anyone as a Democrat is akin to helping a fascist anyways. The idiots who spout all kinds of nonsense that really doesn't actually help anyone but checks to see if you agree completely with them and means they will be isolated and without popular support.
And actually I am referring to Nazis since they ran on calling themselves socialist and supporting the people only to have the leaders who just wanted power to scrap the concept for conquest. No country is anarchist because then they couldn't have rules to consider themselves a country.
Anarchism isn't even a leftist ideology it's straight up off the chart because the only way it works is if you don't care about anyone or anything else. And sure is a lot easier to think that way then accept that it's dumb.
You are completely wrong about what constitutes anarchism. In fact, although there are different anarchist theories, some of the things you cite are incompatible with any form of anarchism. For example, enslavement is objectively hierarchical and impossible to reconcile with anarchism of any form, as is capitalism, as is bombing someone to force them to do your will. You are parroting anti-anarchist propaganda. I'd encourage you to read up on this.
Anarchist communities definitely have structure. It's just that the structure is horizontal, so to someone who's immersed in our hierarchical society, it may be confused for disorder.
Clap clap! Now you're understanding! There can be no state, correct.
It depends on what you mean by "rules." Certainly, oppression is categorically not permitted under anarchism, nor any form of enslavement or exploitation. You can certainly have agreed upon guidelines and roles in your community. Anarchy isn't the absence of rules, but rather the absence of hierarchies and a state. Anarchist communities usually have ways of ensuring liberty for all, and may use measures like diffuse sanctions or even exile from the community in extreme cases.
Edit: Might I add that to me it seems like anarchism is the most considerate, empathetic philosophies. I'm not sure why you think it's just thoughtless, because it's not. It encourages things like mutual aid and comraderie.
LOL holy shit dude.
No one would own slaves in an anarchist system because some nerd explained that "technically that adds a heirarchy in our society and we don't have tiers of personhood"?
Tell that to the guy with the guns and chains.
No one cares about the textbook definition in real anarchy. They care about getting what they want. And if you don't have rules to bind people to your side to resist them then your ideals of anarchy are useless. You must destroy the concept of the individual to obtain a version of anarchy that works and the first outsider to realize this and use it will undoubtedly ruin the project.
Anarchy works as a system in the mind and on paper, but less so when an individual decides they don't care because they are born with sociopathic tendencies and realize there is no place for themselves other than what they make.
The absence of a state just makes it more likely to collapse in on itself when the fighting starts and people trying to protect themselves throw others under the bus.
You can't say total freedom from labels and structure of a system but then say "oh but don't do anything that might hurt that." People have already latched onto the first part. Anarchy works on lly in theory or as an eventual free-for-all until someone comes up with rules which ends the anarchy.
I don't even know where to start because you are basing this on a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what anarchism is. Anarchism does work. I'd encourage you to read that book I linked, at least the introduction.
I'd also recommend reading "Mutual Aid" by Peter Kropotkin. The ugly traits like greed you reference are greatly exacerbated by our unjust and oppressive society. No species survives without mutual aid.
Anarchism is fundamentally incompatible with fascism, capitalism, and other unjust and oppressive systems. The fascist with whips and chains won't cease because some nerd explains anarchism -- he will cease because he will he yeeted if he persists in harming others for his own personal gain.
Please read something. Or listen. I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but you are very, very ignorant.
And you are coming from an emphatic and emotionally charged perspective. You have an ideology you want to be true.
You claim that this system is great and holds up, but it's like an ice cube. It stays as it is fine until you put it in the ocean.
The system nor the people are ever as perfect as desired in the thought experiment and in reality it cracks and melts to the force of reality. The same way that laissez-faire economic policy does not lead to shared collective wealth. It only works till one person decides they want to take more and if they get others to agree then it's over.
So how is it that this perfect ideology doesn't work with any of the systems you don't like but just so happens to perfeclty fit in with one that is favored by you? You have an emotional attachment to the concept working which means all the minor flaws can be overlooked for the joy it will bring. Anyone can pull up someone who has written ad nauseum about their idea of how it should all work but we are bound by the rules of reality and we have data to work from. That is where we find actual systems to work from.
I'm not malinformed, I just don't agree with your ideology as I see the flaws inherent to them. I can see the paradox and the reality and nature of humans. At best there will be instances of oppression happening in small scale or even the familial level and when it can not be squashed it will erode at the system the pretends to believe everyone is just and that the flaws can be fixed through joint agreement as everyone will obviously agree with their idea of sanity.
We are all in the insane asylum. None of us share reality, and unlocking the doors and expecting everyone to play nice is hopeful at best.
Again, I'd encourage you to start by understanding what constitutes anarchism. If you want to argue that it won't work, then fine, but this version of anarchism you've concocted in your mind doesn't match with what any anarchists have ever claimed. No one merely expects everyone to play nice, and nothing about anarchist theory relies on human nature being perfect. It can and does work in spite of our human flaws.
What it does claim is that traits like mutual aid and cooperation are suppressed in an unjust system, and that these things are just as much present in humans as are harmful traits like competition or war.
Please read up on what anarchism is. It's impossible to have a discussion about something totally fabricated and baseless.
Understanding your desired definition of anarchism
A definition you value because it says that humans will be enterely helpful to each other the moment they are freed from the system you personally do not like (even if for valid reasons). There does not seem to be a lack of charity funds available and yet there is also no lack of people skimming from them.
You are saying my definition doesn't mesh with others when all you point to is that of a couple individuals as well that you respect more than me. You can't even hear my side of the argument without dismissing it because that is the nature of humans.
It's impossible to also have a conversation with you as you insist holding onto your perspective because it's what you brain is trained to do. It's the way humans protect themselves and it's why a singular self perceived idea of reality never works because it lacks the nuance of realizing others are here that do not share these thoughts.
You are correct in this being a waste of time but for the wrong reasons. And also likely why neither of us will have a victory in this ever. Ever. The best we can hope for is to accept and modify reality not change it.
Again, anarchism does not claim that we will abruptly end society and everyone will immediately cooperate. Anarchism does not rely on people being perfect. Anarchism is not the absence of rules (though the term "rules" may not be uses, since it implies connection to a hierarchical system).
You are using a false definition of anarchism, based on anti-anarchist misinformation and propaganda. You make as much sense as the "anarcho" capitalists. You think it means no rules, no guidelines, no societal roles.
Read up on the Zapatistas. There you will find a good example of an anarchist community at work. Even my non-profit, though not purely anarchist, adopts many of its principles, such as that of horizontality.
Good day to you. It seems you need more time to reflect and learn from what I've said. Honestly understandable -- sometimes these forums seem to inherently encourage hostility and doubling down in spite of oneself, and I think you'll come to know that what I'm saying is accurate once you've had some time to mull this over and maybe click some of those links I gave you.
Wow you self absorbed narcissist. You are right everyone else is wrong. And clearly it's because you are the only one with a right answer. Show me you didn't actually read anything I wrote harder. I hope one day you truly can comprehend what it means to be wrong and maybe you can catch a glimpse of reality once.
What a mess of an argument from you.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Or listen.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
This is ahistorical. Leftists have always fought fascists, when revealed to be fascists. Typically it's the liberals and social democrats who side with fascists, like what happened in Nazi Germany.
Go look up the phrase āAfter Hitler, our turn!ā And report back with your learnings from actual history.
Right??? SpongeBob below, that's some hard revisionism to say that was just them liberals and not us left leaning liberals that did that!
Aye. Meanwhile, the SPD fought the SA in street fights and invented the three arrows symbol.
Say what you will about the effectiveness of reformism (or rather, its near-total absence), but the succdems at least resisted. The Stalinists, meanwhile, called them "social fascists" and cooperated with actual fascists to fight against them.
They said leftists, not Stalinists
When revealed is doing a lot of heavy lifting there and even then that is not entirely accurate to the reality of the situation. There isn't a unified response just the people likely to still be fighting against authoritarianism at any point are likely going to be left leaning in the spectrum by nature of their dissatisfaction of the current system. And even then the fighting force is generally not the leftists but the allies on other parts of the spectrum that they gain.
It's not like an Isolationist country was super excited to fight against fascism, just seemed like the right path forward with coaxing.
The issue is that leftism is incompatible with fascism. Not that leftists can't be bad or evil, they can, but leftism itself cannot coexist with fascism. However, liberalism leads to fascism eventually, and social Democracy is still fundamentally a Capitalist ideology, and is just as easy to corrupt into fascism as shown in Nazi Germany.
As compared to how hard it is to corrupt leftism into Stalinism?
Well, of course my ideology would rise from the ashes. I'm the main character!
Yes you are, I confirmed this with the developers.
Smooth brain accelerationism
It's like "I'm a momentary embarrassed millionaire", but apocalypse edition.
Oh absolutely everyone thinks they are gonna be leader of the ashes just look at all the stupid tech bros who are sure they would be ok in an apocalypse.
I mean someone is gonna be the next Alexander the Great of the ashes probably so for 1 person they are right but the odds aren't in our favor.
for anarchists at least it's more "maybe we can have a stateless community when there aren't a bunch of people with guns who very much want us to not have a stateless community"
canāt wait for the tuxpunk future
I'm torn between the Calico Caliphate and the Tortie Theocracy..
Heads up, the Stray States won't tolerate cups and mugs hanging dangerously close to tables
tuxpunkists when the xeniaist retro xeniaism appears:
No one's utopia rises from the ashes of a collapsed society. Usually collapse is followed by a run of short-lived autocrats, until one of them (or a coalition) sees the trend and is determined not to be the next dead dictator. They then create a constitution and none of them are elected as the executive.
By then everyone is desperate for some quiet, and no one really cares to be king anymore. (Cromwell was unique in handing the theone of England back to a family with some royal legitimacy, but that was before the ideals of the enlightenment.)
What we haven't tried yet is crafting an ironclad constitution before or during the violence. Were I not a depressed misanthrope with no organization skills, I might have developed an online website that tracked the constitutions of the world (as cross-translated as possible) and made workshops for hypothetical clauses, such as ranked-choice US presidential elections won by popular vote. The point would be to make a site where fledgling states could hammer out ironclad constitutional clauses toward an actual public-serving state. Sadly, I'm pathetic and didn't do this. And no one else has either.
The more prepared grassroots movements are before the collapse, the less churn of warlords the state has to suffer during the aftermath.
Note that corporations, rich masterminds and foreign interests will still offer finances and materiel to shills to take over and serve as a ruthless puppet dictator. These will be your most difficult adversaries. The DPRK shows us how bad that can get.
Anarchism is about building from the ground up with mutual aid organizations, which create the infrastructure that will support labor unions, community service orgs and other public serving interests. Since these serve as a sneak attack on elite-serving establishment, accelleration doesn't help them, though mutual aid will help neighborhoods survive when the collapse comes.
I wouldn't mind some anarcho communism by someone that knows more about how to make laws than me
Too bad, you're getting totalitarian theocracy for the post-apocalypse and you'll like it! (They literally crucify you if you don't)
Not againš
Caesar's Legion is dangerously popular in certain crowds
Well first you would probably have to get rid of one of those words since you can't have anarchy and rules.
Anarcho-Communism is one of the most popular forms of Anarchism, and Anarchism has rules, just not authority or hierarchy. It's a horizontal organizational structure, not the absence of all structure.
Aye. A slogan I've occasionally heard is "rule without rulers".
You can have mutually agreed upon rules and structure in anarchism. "The Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin explains the theory behind anarcho-communism pretty well. I'm not aware of any form of anarchism that doesn't have rules in some form. At the very least, you'd have the "rule" against hierarchies, otherwise you wouldn't have anarchism.
Which makes it sound like anarchy is a concept that can't be applied the the real world as there will always be rules. So without changing the base definition of anarchy, any other offshoot is by nature of the requirement of rules,
Not Anarchism.
Seems it would be best to come up with a system with defined rules that allow for freedoms and just call it what is and not rely on the hype that is "anarchy" to sell. Otherwise please remind me what state charter Peter Kropotkin wrote or what governing body of a state rules with Anarchy as their leading principle? Somalia ended their civil war over this so I can't think of one can you?
And yes I understand that there is sub groups practicing but using the protection that is offered by operating inside of a state should not count.
Anarchism is the absence of hierarchies, not the absence of rules. There are very much thriving anarchist communities and agencies among us, even if they don't use the term "anarchist."
Communism is defined as "a stateless, classless society." This too is anarchism.
Communism is a state of anarchy. If someone told you different, they were wrong.
I don't know that it's workable, but self-described communists have always seen statelessness as a goal. They differ mainly in if there should be intermediate steps or if we should jump straight into it.
Anarchist Communism has no real life example to even look at and remains entirely as a school of thought philosophical dream because it's a paradox of definitions. It's simply impossible to be with and without structure.
You can have limited rules and have individualistic agency and issues that arise with it, or defined rules with specific limitations that define the agency while still giving social agency but it does not equate to them being synonymous.
Also the party that pushed for this state system dissolved after only 12 years due to infighting on the nature of how it would work. The answer being that the ideologies don't work in practice.
Not exactly right it's still kind of a democracy
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
It starts with one person that knows about it, then it becomes a long running game of Nomic and nobody has any clue what the fuck the law is supposed to be anymore.
Don't care what happens after, I just need at least a month break from work where I won't be penalized
Apocalypse sounds better than capitalism tbh
Pallas's cat president!
Maxwell has my vote
I can't wait for society to collapse so I can die in peace
Anarcho-* in a nutshell
Oh hey look the comments are full of these cats apparently.
That's right everyone your personal favorite utopia is the only one that is gonna be correct. All you have to do is believe in it super hard and be completely unwilling to change even a fraction of your belief and I guarantee you that that utopia that you are thinking about in your head is gonna be the only one that was right!
But remember only if you completely believe in
Santayour after civilization society, will you get the present you wanted so tell anyone doubting you, that they are a fucking liar and don't know what's best for them or everyone else so they need to fuck off till they see it your way!For society of course.
P.S. one group has that idea already and they have a lot more members than yours.
The four posadists with differing views are not ready for the collapse
eco centrism?
Basically Metro 2033
Me asf