What do you think of anarchism?
Communist @ communist @lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz Posts 1Comments 731Joined 1 yr. ago
Communist @ communist @lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
Posts
1
Comments
731
Joined
1 yr. ago
What is it then, define it?
Anarchism has nothing to do with "no rules"
Which anarchist philosophers did you read to come to that conclusion?
You can’t have consensus on everything in any society, it’s impossible, so if Anarchy is merely democracy, why than call it anarchy?
- That's why you default to a vote in cases where consensus is impossible
- because it's about the abolishment of unjust heirarchy, please read the work of proudhon, bakunin, or kropotkin before giving your opinions on anarchism.
next you'll say "but there are so many laws and so little time for normal people, how can we vote and do consensus on everything?"
to which I will respond, can you point me to a historical example of this being a problem?
You may then say, there's never been any anarchist societies
https://anarwiki.org/List_of_Anarchist_Societies
Also, you list syndicates as an example, which is an anarchist belief.
In anarchism, usually policing is handled rotationally, like most positions of authority.
Which anarchist philosophers beliefs did you find foolish and young, and why? I'd love a critique!
The local hospital needs to decide how much money (read: resources) to spend on constructing a new wing, and who should do the job.
The consensus building forum, an example of one of these that you can research are the zapatista councils of good government
A power line has to be built to replace the one that just fell down, and your direct democracy decided last week that you want to do something to incentivise the farmers to produce healthier and more sustainable food, rather than easy to produce and unhealthy food, but you haven’t ironed out the details yet. The next option you have to affect these decisions is later today, when you’ll have some kind of meeting or vote to decide on the matters. How you will find a time and place that allows everyone to have their say is an obvious issue, but I’ll leave it to you to explain how to overcome it.
This has never been an issue in any anarchist society that has ever existed. If you have a historical example, please point to it! They simply set aside a day of the week to allow people to form consensus, they would discuss the issue and anyone that wants to say something about it can, and then there's either a vote on the matter, or a consensus decision.
These decisions need to be made, and when everyone doesn’t agree, there needs to be a mechanism to get stuff done regardless. I haven’t even gotten started on how to deal with internal groups or outside forces that want to exploit the system or the society as a whole.
Yeah, in zapatista councils if everyone doesn't agree they leave it to a vote. Outside forces are definitely a problem for sure, but I see no reason to believe it's an unsolveable one, and it certainly doesn't mean you aren't completely strawmanning the anarchist argument.
Please explain how this is solved without some kind of hierarchical system where some people make decisions and enforce those decisions on behalf of the group as a whole. These are the roles we typically assign to “rulers” or “the state” (i.e. the bureaucracy).
Anarchists are for the abolishment of all unjust heirarchy, not all heirarchy in general, this is also a strawman. In an anarchist society this would often be done with a weekly or monthly randomly assigned rotation, although there are tons of methods.
Please actually bother to take a moment and read the works of proudhon, bakunin, and kropotkin, even a summary, before you talk about your strong opinions about anarchism. You simply don't know enough to begin to have an argument, I wouldn't give strong opinions about something I don't even know the basics of. You don't even know the difference between a government and a state and that's covered in anarchism 101.
There are tons, they just are usually destroyed by outside forces
Maybe you mean general elections on every detail of law, but again, that's impossible, it's stupid, it's a waste of time and resources to have people decide how farmers interact with suppliers and dairy, something 99.9% of all people have no knowledge of.
this is not a problem in any real world anarchist society that has ever existed, can you give one example of this being a problem? What actually happens is building law through consensus, look at the way the zapatistas organize for example.
showing up to the meetings isn't mandatory, but they have one day off where everyone is allowed to participate, in the event of a tie, they vote, but most decisions are made through consensus.
also I think you vastly overestimate how much laws need to be changed, lawmakers will not endlessly go back and forth about unimportant things. did you know most members of congress in the US don't even read the bills they sign? How much work is it really to help with making law once a week or so?
representative democracy is not direct democracy to be clear
Anarchists believe in a government with direct democracy, you are arguing against a strawman
Anarchists aren't against government, or even taxes, they're against the state, which is different.
you defeated a strawman, no anarchist philosopher would disagree that that would be stupid
ITT: Nobody has any idea what any anarchist philosopher ever said or believed and simply thinks it means no rules
They then strut victoriously, thinking they are smarter than every anarchist philosopher who has ever existed because they know that rules matter in a society, not realizing that no anarchist thinker has ever said "let's just have no rules or organization and just see how it goes based on the vibes"
You don't know what anarchism is or what it means and are arguing with a strawman.
anarchism means no rulers, not no rules
we would just use direct democracy for our government
we don't even want no government, we want no state, those are different things
can you point to an anarchist philosopher who believes the nonsense you argued against?
Eh, at least he fixes stuff quickly, patch is already released
No, and I despise this ideology, you should actively confront things you disagree with whenever they appear, else next time you're wrong you'll just say they're trolling, cover your ears and won't self reflect, analyze, or grow.
The trick is not getting mad over what they say, not not saying anything at all.
Because you didn't make a point, you indicated that religious people can be non-toxically anti-lgbtq without giving an example of them being non-toxically lgbtq
I deny that it's possible to be non-toxically anti-lgbtq because being against someone simply for existing and being themselves is inherently toxic.
As is being against the right to freedom of expression.
Furthermore you didn't even give an example you just vaguely handwaved at religion.
I'd be very interested in sway and hyprlands numbers
Religion. That’s like the most obvious example possible.
That makes no sense at all, the parts of religion that are anti lgbtq ARE toxic...
Are you against gay marriage on religious grounds? Are you against trans people on religious grounds? that's obviously toxic.
Furthermore it's fully possible to be religious and not anti-lgbtq... correct?
so that isn't really an example. Give me like, something someone would say that's anti-lgbtq and non-toxic, an example quote?
Why do you think this is incompatible with anarchism?
Why can't they simply vote on such laws being absolute, and hard to change, like we currently do in non-anarchist democracies?
Why did it take them 30+ years? Why couldn't an anarchist society simply vote to build a new train line?