• Gabu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anarchism is simply opposition to hierarchies that allow control over others, such as the control capitalists have over workers

    Or the control the hierarchical entity (state) must have over a populous to stop thievery and violence. Even in a perfectly idealized world, anarchism only just barely gets to work, teetering on the brink of collapse.

    • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We have a state now though, has thievery and violence been stopped? How many thousands are in poverty, how many are killed in global wars waged in the name of profits? There are states where theft and murder are extremely rare, and states where it is common. What is the difference between the conditions where it is common and uncommon? Is a top-down control and manipulation the only way to reduce violence?

      Anarchism works all the time. It’s more than a political structure, it’s an idea about how to organize relations between people, and there already are many groups that are active that function on anarchist principles.

      Any group that collects itself in the modern world as anarchist, like anarchist groups in the Spanish Civil War, are heavily repressed by state forces. Capitalist states work together to discourage anarchist ideals even more so than communism because of the possibility it has for threatening traditional power structures.

      • Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        the possibility it has for threatening traditional power structures.

        You mean the possibility of completely collapsing civilization as a whole.

        We have a state now though, has thievery and violence been stopped?

        Fallacious reasoning, and pretty obvious at that. I give you a cup of water - some water has been poisoned by heavy metals. If you drink the cup of water, will you get metal poisoning? The only intellectually honest answer is: the question is flawed. The same way it doesn’t follow that
        Some water is poisoned ⇏ All water is poisoned
        It also doesn’t follow that
        The suppression of violence begets control ⇏ All control suppresses violence.

        This is further proven by your following statement

        What is the difference between the conditions where it is common and uncommon?

        Which opposes your own argumentation.

        • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You said a state must have control to stop thievery and murder, but I’ve never heard of a state that successfully stopped those things, is what I was getting at. The point about conditions where violence is common or less common is that there are more primary factors to violence than whether or not someone will be punished by state forces for that violence. There are more effective ways to combat violence and theft than a police state.