Cowbee @ Cowbee @lemm.ee

This town, in fact, has more than enough room for the two of us

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

413

Joined

2 yr. ago

You can't prove something that hasn't existed. You're arguing against theory by saying it hasn't been put into practice, disallowing it from being put into practice to be tested. This is the same anti-leftist, anti-development argument. The theory itself needs to be discounted.

You're not making any sort of analysis, just sticking your head in the sand and pretending that primitive anarchism is the same as modern anarchism, and moreover are taking a mystical approach, rather than a practical approach. That's why I'm saying you ignore Materialism, rather than arguing on the basis that humans are driven by material conditions, you instead argue that since one unrelated tangential structure turned into another, that Anarchism itself is bunk.

We aren't going to agree here, clearly.

How does one design something that hasn't been built before?

You have to prove why they would run into the same problems, you're still making vague accusations of Anarcho-Primitivism being the same as Modern Anarchist structure. The lack of existing structure disproving the possible existence of said structure is the same argument Anti-Communists and Anti-Socialists make with regularity, and is similarly an incomplete argument.

I, again, am not an Anarchist, but your method of argumentation is fundamentally flawed and won't convince any Anarchist to join a Marxist movement. It lacks Materialism in its analysis and is of the same quality as generic Anti-Leftist argumentation. Instead, you should argue against concepts like ParEcon, Mutual Aid, and other Anarchist theory, without arguing against Primitive Communism.

You do realize that the US has control of South Korea's military during time of war, correct? It's an explicit part of their structure. South Korea quite literally does not have complete agency, despite what you're saying.

If you're taking a materialist approach, you would recognize that hierarchy was more effective than primitive communism, not Anarchism. You'd have to argue against modern propositions of flat organization, not just anarcho-primitivism. I'm sure many Anarchists would agree with you that hierarchical forms of structure are generally more effective than Anarcho-Primitivism, but would disagree that hierarchy is necessary or even better than modern Anarchist theory.

I'm well aware of Marx's rejections of Anarchism, I just think that since Marx is a human and could not predict modern Anarchist theory, modern Marxists should argue against modern Anarchism, rather than historical.

Nobody said it because it's such a low hanging fruit that it's actually just straight up rotten and fell off years ago.

Lemmy was founded by a Communist, and Communism in theory is focused on creating a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society via Worker ownership of the means of production. It's fairly easy to see why Lemmy, a platform built on decentralization and a rejection of the profit motive, appeals to leftists like Communists.

Additionally, most Communists practice Materialism, and analyze historical events and structures on the basis of their material conditions. Rather than believing tools have mystical properties that corrupt the minds of those that collectively own them, they look at why historical examples of Socialism have turned out the way they did, and seek to learn from them.

Nobody in any serious number seriously wants a dictatorship with an absolute state.

I'm not an Anarchist, I'm just explaining misconceptions about Anarchism. You ironically lack Materialism in your analysis, with several instances of you claiming hierarchy simply appears, without analyzing the mechanisms of why.

Additionally, society has never been organized historically the way modern Anarchists desire it to be, primitive Communism is not what Anarchists, except for the fringe Anarcho-Primitivists, argue for. Again, they want strong horizontal organization, filled with decentralization. It isn't an arbitrary rejection of organization period.

All in all, I do think you can do better. Rather than simply saying things "appear to organize in certain manners," question the material conditions that changed organizational structures, and analyze why you think specific examples of horizontal organization posited by Anarchists would regress into hierarchy.

Anarchists believe that if horizontal power structures are in place, it becomes difficult to go against that current. Ie, if everyone has power, in order to gain more power than another, one must require people willing to give up their power to submit to them in order to push against others. This theoretical group would also have to be strong enough to go against the rest of the public.

It's similar to why Communists believe once Communism is globally achieved, there wouldn't be mechanisms for Capitalism to come back, just like Monarchism is almost nonexistant today.

IP in general is a very difficult idea to support. In theory, it's supposed to reward innovation, but in practice it results in stagnation and price gouging.

I'm no Anarchist, but that's not what Anarchism is. Anarchism is a fully developed horizontal system, rather than vertical. The idea that Anarchism is simply "no rules" is an unfounded stereotype, there's lots of Anarchist theory.

While I personally think it's very difficult to achieve, it wouldn't be for the reasons you've listed. Simply destroying government isn't an Anarchist ideal, building up parallel structures like networks of Mutual Aid to replace the state and make it redundant is Anarchist praxis.

Capitalism is fundamentally hierarchy established in property rights. Doing away with hierarchy does away with Capitalism. Unless, of course, you're arguing for Anarcho-Communism or something.

Sorry, but you're highly wrong about your misconceptions of Communism. Communism in no way starves human impulses to succeed or grow any more than Capitalist success does. Communism eliminates the profit motive, yes, but that is historically a highly flawed motive in general.

Socialism/Communism/Anarchism are not fairy-tale Utopias where everyone magically gets a pony, people still work to produce goods and services. However, this production is democratized, in opposition to anti-democratic privatized systems.

Communism is, at first, Socialism. You're confusing Communism with Monarchism, or Oligarchy, when in reality Communism and Socialism are primarily about democratization and decentralization.

Compare 2 factories.

Factory 1 is Capitalist. It is owned by a businessman, and he employs workers to use said factory to produce commodities for sale on the market. The largest forms of voice the Workers have is Unionization, or, failing that, working somewhere else, if available.

Factory 2 is Socialist. The Workers are the Owners, and as such elect a manager to represent them in worker councils.

Looking at the 2 structures, Socialism is more democratic, and more decentralized, in theory. We must take this theory and see why or why not historical examples have measured up to this, from a practical, Materialist perspective. Tools aren't mystical, they don't corrupt the minds of those who share ownership of them.

It's easy to see why Lemmy, a platform based on decentralization and a rejection of the Profit Motive, has far more leftists.

Nah, it's just compound labor. "Skill" is just the expressed form of training in current work, ie labor is only worth that which labor is required to replicate it.

Leaving Reddit was one of the best things I've done for my phone addiction. Lemmy isn't nearly as addictive, and the lack of a profit motive to fuck things up and encourage mass clicking helps control the content.

I'd actually say it's the reverse, all labor is unskilled labor, but some of it takes previous unskilled labor to perform and is thus compressed.

What an excellent way to dodge literally everything I pointed out and feign a logical high ground. Perfectly smug and absolutely irrelevant.

If everyone has equal power, there's no statist component.

Cooperative structures are not inherently more efficient, but Cooperative work structures would result in higher paid workers. The strawman about a lack of decision making in the Cooperative could easily be flipped, while the Workers are already producing, the Capitalists are figuring out how to extort their customers and workers better.

Communally owned property supports itself by virtue of being communally owned. If nobody has an individual claim to it, someone who tries would be contested by the community, hence its communal ownership.

You only have strawmen and vibes, no actual points.

Centrism is without nuance.