Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Halo
Raw
Avatar of Halo

Halo

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

Not that I'm well versed, but the way I see it, the problem with anarchy is a lack of infrastructure. It's unsustainable on the large scale. You can have a town or a city be anarchist, but at the level of a state or country it starts to fall apart - at least in the modern day, with modern requirements such as internet, power grids, decently quick long-distance travel, and so on and so forth.

You need co-operation on a huge scale in order to maintain these things, and that's extremely difficult in an anarchist society. Indeed, that's sort of why we ended up forming democracies in the first place. So unless you're going to massively technologically downgrade your life, anarchy is somewhat untenable.

(As I said, I'm not well-versed in this, so if anyone wants to correct me please do <3)
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Doivid
Raw
Avatar of Doivid

Doivid

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

That's why large countries should be broken up. (^:

#calexit #yescalifornia.org
2x Like Like
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Halo
Raw
Avatar of Halo

Halo

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

That's why large countries should be broken up. (^:

#calexit #yescalifornia.org


1x Laugh Laugh
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by KnightShade
Raw
Avatar of KnightShade

KnightShade

Member Seen 4 yrs ago

Not that I'm well versed, but the way I see it, the problem with anarchy is a lack of infrastructure. It's unsustainable on the large scale. You can have a town or a city be anarchist, but at the level of a state or country it starts to fall apart - at least in the modern day, with modern requirements such as internet, power grids, decently quick long-distance travel, and so on and so forth.

You need co-operation on a huge scale in order to maintain these things, and that's extremely difficult in an anarchist society. Indeed, that's sort of why we ended up forming democracies in the first place. So unless you're going to massively technologically downgrade your life, anarchy is somewhat untenable.

(As I said, I'm not well-versed in this, so if anyone wants to correct me please do <3)


The way I see it, anarchy isn't only unsustainable but unachievable too. And that's an important part of it in a way. We live in a society that leans towards governmental control, anarchists don't necessarily have to completely restructure society. They just have to ask the right questions to balance out the orthodoxy. At least that's my thoughts on the Noam Chomsky breed of anarchy, that asks societal institutions to justify themselves.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by aza
Raw

aza Artichokes

Member Seen 7 mos ago

That's why large countries should be broken up. (^:

#calexit #yescalifornia.org


^
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Doivid
Raw
Avatar of Doivid

Doivid

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

<Snipped quote by Doivid>



lol I'm dead srs though. It's time the US split into a number of smaller countries.

And all the separatist movements in Europe should move forward! Time for Catalonia.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Oliver
Raw
Avatar of Oliver

Oliver Stupid Kid

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

Don't become anarchists, guys.
It doesn't make you look cool and rebellious.
What you want to be is Fascists.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Vilageidiotx
Raw
Avatar of Vilageidiotx

Vilageidiotx Jacobin of All Trades

Member Seen 1 yr ago

<Snipped quote by Buddha>

I think you can hardly call the revolution in Russia a fully realized communist undertaking. And I think it's a structure vs. superstructure issue. When you change the structure of a polity but not the superstructure, you'll find it's not very sustainable.


Eh, it could be called an attempt. It just relied too much on the idea of the vanguard party. Personally I think the problem with Marxism has always been the obsession with purity, and that obsession with purity both blinded the Soviets to what they were actually doing and led them to squash the communist parts of their society rather quickly because they weren't following the correct pattern. You know, "Hey Communes, I see you are doing okay and all, but it's not time for that yet! Didn't you read the book? You're on the wrong step!"

And the entire "Marxism is inevitable" thing blinded them to the reality that their government was becoming another corrupt power structure. No, Khrushchev didn't betray the revolution, he was inevitable the moment Lenin said "We need a strong state"

Not that I'm well versed, but the way I see it, the problem with anarchy is a lack of infrastructure. It's unsustainable on the large scale. You can have a town or a city be anarchist, but at the level of a state or country it starts to fall apart - at least in the modern day, with modern requirements such as internet, power grids, decently quick long-distance travel, and so on and so forth.

You need co-operation on a huge scale in order to maintain these things, and that's extremely difficult in an anarchist society. Indeed, that's sort of why we ended up forming democracies in the first place. So unless you're going to massively technologically downgrade your life, anarchy is somewhat untenable.

(As I said, I'm not well-versed in this, so if anyone wants to correct me please do <3)


Well like I said before, Anarchism is basically super-democracy. The difference between Anarchy and something like Athenian democracy is that Anarchists are really just democratizing everything instead of, as most traditional democracies do, democratizing policy and the right to chose a leader. In the traditional Anarchism that was popular in the 20th century, practiced in Spain during their Civil War and an important component of the old American far left, what we call "Anarcho-Syndicalism", amounted to the communes seizing the means of production and turning a democratic workplace into the building block of the society, so that instead of chaos, you end up with an organization that looked like this.



And this isn't just theory; it's been tried before, and Anarcho-Syndicalism had a pretty good run. During the Spanish Civil War, when the Fascists rose up against the Spanish Republican, the Republican government crumpled and became ineffective under the pressure, and it was the Anarchists that picked up the slack. And they did really damned well considering Stalin essentially stabbed them in the back trying to make Spain Stalinist, and that Hitler and Mussolini funded and armed the shit out of Franco while the western democracies left the Spanish Republic twisting in the wind. It did turn out that Anarchists struggle with military coordination though, which seems to be the Achilles heel of most Anarchist movements, and turned their battles into messy affairs. If I remember right they did okay in the beginning when the Fascists were using outdated rifles and had no modern weapons, and they continued to do alright against Mussolini, though that's not much of an accomplishment since most people tended to do alright against Mussolini.

But there is more to the movement too, because unbeknownst to most people we actually have another major Anarchist experiment going on right now. The Kurds in Northern Syria have adopted an Anarchist form of government. Not Anarchy-Syndicalism, but another that is more heavily influenced by democracy than communism. I don't know nearly enough about Democratic Confederalism, but from what I know they've built their system on the village and the locality rather than the work place, and that they are unique among the far left in that, instead of immediately seizing the means of production, they've placed property rights under control of the communes. This is to say that you can own private capital and be a capitalist so long as your community sees it as beneficial, but the moment the community decides private capital is against the interests of the community, they can simply vote to seize it and the capitalists have no recourse.

There system looks like this, incidentally.



So anyway, in short, Anarchists aren't about destroying the power structure and just sitting back to see what happens. There is a plan there. It's more or less based on the theory that authority sucks energy from a community rather than directing or adding it. An Anarchist would say the problem with voter turnout in modern Republics isn't apathy, but alienation, that people don't vote because they feel their vote is irrelevant, that they can't change their lives for the better against the authority structures of their society. Essentially, they idea is that we all want to participate to improve our own world and the world around us, but that we all more or less feel locked out of the process and so we just... don't participate. If you believe the reason that Democracies fair better against Leninists and Fascists is that those authoritarians kill civic engagement and make their people apathetic, wheres Democracies at least coax out some level of civic energy, then Anarchism may be something worth looking into.

I do also feel the need to say that, despite the fact they make fun of the Anarchist movements above for being impractical, the Anarcho-Capitalist movement has only had one serious experiment and it was a total clusterfuck. So don't mind the An-Caps, they get the trophy for most incompetent political philosophy in western history.
1x Like Like 1x Thank Thank
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by ZB1996
Raw

ZB1996

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

Some of the people here have been quite hostile to the idea of you deciding to be anarchist, but don't listen to them. I'm not an anarchist myself at all, but there's nothing wrong with being an anarchist. I know enough of it that anarchists aren't advocates of chaos, and there's plenty of intelligent, engaging anarchist literature to choose to read to get more into it.
1x Like Like 2x Thank Thank
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Clirkus
Raw
OP
Avatar of Clirkus

Clirkus Heliophobic

Member Seen 4 yrs ago

@ZB1996 That's the idea, I'm still doing the reading and the more I learn the more I like/agree with it. I still don't think I'm well-versed enough on the subject to have a serious conversation about it yet, but I enjoyed reading everyone else's thoughts on it in this thread.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Doivid
Raw
Avatar of Doivid

Doivid

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

Some of the people here have been quite hostile to the idea of you deciding to be anarchist, but don't listen to them. I'm not an anarchist myself at all, but there's nothing wrong with being an anarchist. I know enough of it that anarchists aren't advocates of chaos, and there's plenty of intelligent, engaging anarchist literature to choose to read to get more into it.


Where the hell did you come from with this level headed and empathetic reply
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by ZB1996
Raw

ZB1996

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

@Doivid

California.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Doivid
Raw
Avatar of Doivid

Doivid

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

@Doivid

California.


oh fuck yea. a countryman!

#CALexit, my friend
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by Polymorpheus
Raw

Polymorpheus

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Dinh AaronMk
Raw
Avatar of Dinh AaronMk

Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)

Member Seen 6 mos ago

Beware icepicks, friend.

Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Dinh AaronMk
Raw
Avatar of Dinh AaronMk

Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)

Member Seen 6 mos ago

[Le glory to Kurds post]




blessed be 2 kurds, pls buy kurd oil.

#BringBackAhuraMazda
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by Polymorpheus
Raw

Polymorpheus

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Dinh AaronMk
Raw
Avatar of Dinh AaronMk

Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)

Member Seen 6 mos ago

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

Why's that?


Because it's not like I totally want to get 99 years Gulag for this but totally don't want to go around expressing dismay at hiding leadership behind 33 layers of bureaucratic leveling so as to strengthen the central state and provide an impenetrable buffer from the people for when you go and confiscate that year's wheat crop in Ukraine and totally don't make a bad deal with the Nazis over Polska.

So, you know. I'm just saying.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by Polymorpheus
Raw

Polymorpheus

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Dinh AaronMk
Raw
Avatar of Dinh AaronMk

Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)

Member Seen 6 mos ago

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

Sounds suboptimal.

Spending resources minimizing dissent will just multiply dissension, and make that system vulnerable to upheaval by future systems.

A convoluted management protocol will allow exploitation, which can be a vector towards future upheaval or internal fracturing.

Confiscating wealth is inefficient, as modern methods allow states to produce surpluses vast enough to make wheat prices plummet.

Just saying.




"900 years Gulag, komrade ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)"
↑ Top
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet