- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
nice video, i’m glad i watched through the whole thing. it’s good to understand the perspective
i have a lot of major hangups with the concept, and i don’t see myself aligning anywhere close to these ideas anytime soon, but i think it’s positive to be shown the principles of anarchy from someone who believes them, rather than a strawman version of anarchy by someone who does not
thank you for posting :)
Where I live out in the remote countryside functions very much like one of these anarchist societies. However it’s hard to imagine doing away with the fundamental concept that keeps peace, the ownership of land.
The megascale farmers are always chewing at the borders of “the hills” and snapping up anything they can get. They used to ignore our rocky and rough land but their greed knows no bounds, and they already own everything else. Without the law to enforce our ownership we would be quickly run over by their much greater resources.
Aside from that all of us small farmers work together and share and help each other only because we can and for the benefit of all.
However I did get called out on a visit to a friend in the city as a “Vault dweller” who would acquire the things I need, return home to my little society, roll the door closed and continue to watch the rest of the world slowly collapse. I feel like anarchy really only works for this sort of small isolated community and unfortunately in a world of 8 billion, it’s simply not workable as organized states will simply run over any group that doesn’t collect taxes to maintain a military or other means of projecting power.
Without that “vault door” to protect you I just don’t see an anarchist society surviving in today’s environment.
you’re missing that the concept of ownership is protecting them, not you. They have the resources to keep gobbling up more land and eventually one bad year, or an accident will cause more and more of you and your neighbours to sell, whereas they are protected by the state as being “too big to fail”. land ownership is a trap you’ve willingly accepted. The end result is a neo-feudalism with a few mega-farming corpos owning everything and you being a serf in all but name.
I agree that this is the end state of our current system. Megafarms raking in vast profits and everyone working on the land is a “hired man” which is just a serf as you say. I’m just unsure if there’s any way to stop it.
The problem I see is that once again without a state to enforce that non-ownership, there’s nothing to prevent groups from organizing to take resources from others. Instead of being slowly bought out, you’ll be run over by a warlord and slaughtered. This tends to happen in 3rd world countries, you have a period of peace and cooperation, a building up of little farming communities until the power vacuum attracts men with balaclavas and AKs.
Resource accumulation always leads to power, and that seems to be a fundamental weakness of anarchy. It works great in a society of small players with small goals, but how do you deal with those that would own the entire world and the followers they accrue?
Yo don’t need a state to defend against warlords. There’s no greater motivation to defend yourself than preserving your liberty.
There’s no resource accumulation in anarchy. That’s the whole point
Right, but the problem is that anarchy by its nature isn’t “enforced”. So it exists in an ecosystem alongside other ways of living.
If others choose to accumulate resources and use them to destroy their anarchic neighbour to seize their resources, the anarchists will obviously have to defend themselves.
How do you defend yourselves against such a threat? To do so you are forced to accumulate resources. And thus anarchy ends up progressing to feudalism. While I like the concept of anarchy and believe it works on a small scale, in practice just about every society that is in conflict with others has followed the same path from anarchy->monarchy->democracy->oligarchy, almost as if it’s forced by game theory principles.
I feel like anarchy does work, but only in isolation from competition.
If others choose to accumulate resources and use them to destroy their anarchic neighbour to seize their resources, the anarchists will obviously have to defend themselves.
Accumulation of resources implies exploitation. Anarchists will agitate those exploited to overthrow their exploiters.
How do you defend yourselves against such a threat? To do so you are forced to accumulate resources.
That doesn’t follow. Unless by “accumulate resources” you mean the generic practice of a society having stuff? Anarchists don’t need a single person accumulating stuff to defend themselves.
I think you should read more about anarchism instead of imagining wild scenarios. Rest assured that anarchists have considered the defense argument.
Resource accumulation always leads to power, and that seems to be a fundamental weakness of anarchy.
You’re right, as long as greedy people and a means of hoarding resources exists (e.g. money) people will be able to accumulate power. This is why anarchy is often shorthand for “anarcho-communism” which is moneyless and removes a malicious person’s ability to pay others to back them up leaving them vulnerable to self-defense (which is now not prevented by the state) by the communities they are trying to exploit.
This would go along of course with the end of capitalism which is what puts people in a position where risking their lives for money makes sense in the first place.
Two ways to deal with it
-
Eliminate means of resource accumulation (i.e. money) – with communism
-
Keep in check the tiny number of individuals with the dark-triad traits that cause them to want to accumulate power – with self-defense.
This all needs to happen with major changes in culture and could not come from a simple revolution.
-
Couple thought experiments for those interested:
This Subthread addresses how we premempt violent, conquistadoric tendencies (starts at home) – and how we can prevent the reemergence of heirarchies
This video (and really the whole channel) “dares” to vividly dream; to envision: A world taken back from the clutches of the planetary work machine.
Capitalist Realism, i suspect, has a Heirarchal sibling, intent on keeping us convinced that “Resistance is Futile.” Therefore Dreaming and “being Utopian” are not only of utility, but crucial and worth celebrating
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Thank you for explaining this.
Well folks, let’s go home. natural_motions has it all figured out.
Well, the mod kind of illustrates why anarchism is unviable by using their power in the heirarchy here to silence dissent.
Even with the small sphere of influence here in their own community, anarchists cannot run things without resorting to heirarchy as a literal first option.
A good object lesson, as in the real world this would be using a prison or a firing squad or whatever.
freedom of association applies here. “Spoiler: It doesn’t” does not constitute a nuanced discussion anyway.
maybe you can talk to dessalines or nutomic or wait for the plugin system for collective moderation.
Except for all the places and times it has.
Examples of successful countries without a government?
Even the concept of “country” is not applicable. Anarchists don’t believe in borders.
Lmfao, tell us you know nothing about anarchism without saying you know nothing about anarchism
Hint: one of the main points of anarchy is that there is no “country”. How about trying to learn, instead of so confidently asserting your ignorance? (lol, as if)
E: also, not that I expect that you care, but having now watched the full video - the last segment (3 minutes that you can easily skip to) answers your question perfectly.
Perfect case study for how to get me to care less ^
Lol, perfect confirmation of my point… 😂
get me to care less
that would only be possible if you gave any shits in the first place, which you clearly didn’t, you’re here to troll, not learn, so as much as it would be convenient to shift the blame, your ignorance is all on you. At least own it. (again - as if, lmfao)
Every time an anarchist is questioned, they either struggle or demand someone read something.
So yeah a point was proven here
Every time you’re given an opportunity to educate yourself, you seem to reject it. Is that a problem with anarchists or with you?
Frankly I don’t think anyone here cares what you think, you’re only hurting yourself with your willful ignorance.
Turns out reading is an important way to learn.
Zapatistas?
Little shoes?
Anarchy isn’t for you friend. Literacy is a big part of it
anarchism ≠ anarchy
Snobby twats are a bigger part of it, apparently
Example of successful monarchies without a monarch?
Like this sub where the person in authority unilaterally deletes dissent immediately? Or are your principles something you only apply later, after all the undesirables are “taken care of”?
What a surprise. The coomer doesn’t understand political theory.
Wtf is a coomer
So a gross unrelated thing applied randomly without reason. Cool.
I assume OP is referencing that the skeptical commenter was from a Lemmy porn instance.
Not without reason if you think about it
