Which would you rather? One king/governed/whoever that says being gay is bad, or a majority of the population that says being gay is bad?
At least in the second example, you have >50% of the population being happy. And more likely >80% would be happy otherwise you’d just have the 49% fight back and make life miserable for everyone.
Exactly. We have ~50% saying that now, whoch is why I think an anarchist society on a large scale isn’t feasible to transition to anytime within the next few decades at least.
An anarchist revolution won’t happen until we have enough people doing anarchist praxis anyway. My point is that material circumstances quickly radicalize people. I don’t necessarily think there’s much hope for the US to avoid civil war at this point, but in any case if the radicalization happens to be towards anarchist praxis, then you won’t get another leader on top.
I don’t know what you tell you mate, I don’t have an answer to your nihilism. Either perform and agitate for an anarchist praxis to avoid a new dictator, or passively vote and wait for the inevitable fascist decent. It’s your choice in the end.
First paragraph: Agree, except I believe anarchism is unstable and will lead to another leader eventually anyways.
Second paragraph: That’s a false choice and you know it. There are so many possibilities for political organization-- see, for example, every country in the world. I’m not interested in arguing with someone who makes bad faith arguments like this.
Which would you rather? One king/governed/whoever that says being gay is bad, or a majority of the population that says being gay is bad?
At least in the second example, you have >50% of the population being happy. And more likely >80% would be happy otherwise you’d just have the 49% fight back and make life miserable for everyone.
If you had 50% saying stuff like that, you wouldn’t even have an anarchist society anyway.
Exactly. We have ~50% saying that now, whoch is why I think an anarchist society on a large scale isn’t feasible to transition to anytime within the next few decades at least.
There’s years in which nothing happens, and then there’s weeks in which years happen. Don’t underestimate how quickly radicalization can happen.
Historically, most revolutions have been a new upper class replacing an old one.
Yeah well we’re not trying to do that, so 🤷♂️
Who’s “we”? <1% of the population? Good luck enforcing your views, we can’t even enforce democracy with a majority (debatably) that believes in it.
An anarchist revolution won’t happen until we have enough people doing anarchist praxis anyway. My point is that material circumstances quickly radicalize people. I don’t necessarily think there’s much hope for the US to avoid civil war at this point, but in any case if the radicalization happens to be towards anarchist praxis, then you won’t get another leader on top.
I don’t know what you tell you mate, I don’t have an answer to your nihilism. Either perform and agitate for an anarchist praxis to avoid a new dictator, or passively vote and wait for the inevitable fascist decent. It’s your choice in the end.
First paragraph: Agree, except I believe anarchism is unstable and will lead to another leader eventually anyways.
Second paragraph: That’s a false choice and you know it. There are so many possibilities for political organization-- see, for example, every country in the world. I’m not interested in arguing with someone who makes bad faith arguments like this.
See also:
So then the social order we get depends more on economic forces than it does on what the majority wants.
It’s a bit of both