How would an anarchist society function? - No, I don't support Means TV

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Destacado
Fork Cartel dijo:
Lmao at all the people saying it’d be rule of the strongest as if it isn’t already how we live
Presiona para expandir...

If it were rule of the strongest this guy would be emperor of the world.
e96.jpg



You need numbers, you need co-operation, or coercion.
 
Any anarchy will eventually form a society. Nature is inherently anarchist and every time there's enough people together they form a society.
 
The central flaw with anarchism is it's assumption that government is principally an instrument of coercion. While this may seem true on the surface, the reality is that the opposite is much closer to the truth. In a lawless society, people have the ability to coerce others freely, with no obvious accountability. In our society, we have a government which places clear limits on coercion.

To bring this back to the original question of how an anarchist society would function: it would function much like a tyrannical one, with laws being decided arbitrarily by whoever happens to be in a position to enforce them. This makes anarchism a pretty self-defeating idea if the goal is to maximize freedom and liberty.
 
Gonna go out on a limb here and say that nuclear weapons made anarchism obsolete. Dismantling a nuclear-armed state just means you get a bunch of randos with nukes and a much lower threshold for using them. If you seize the state first, dismantle the nukes, then dismantle the state, then you're just a Leninist. And in that case, good luck not getting picked off one by one now that you have no way to check their military power. So with only a handful of entities that have nukes, and MAD as a deterrence, the only way out of the dilemma really is to seize all of the states, dismantle all of the nukes, and then dismantle all of the states. Which again is what Communists have been trying to do for the past century or so.

I think there's a reason why there hasn't been a successful anarchist project since the invention of steamships and rifled artillery. 150 years ago you might have been able to break away from some country or colony and hold out until they got sick of fighting you. But with the kind of lopsided military power that nation states can deploy I don't think that possible now, except in fake cases like Rojava which are superficially "anarchist" while allowing themselves to be propped up by + support the agenda of powerful nation states.
 
An Account dijo:
I'd support an anarchist society if it was walled off from the rest of the world, had hidden cameras everywhere livestreaming their feed for everyone to view, and if we airdropped drugs, weapons, and homeless people on a semi-regular basis.
Presiona para expandir...
If we're going to do this, let me float the idea that only some of the homeless people are given working parachutes?
 
WinterMoonsLight dijo:
Pipe dream that would never work. They can wax poetic about how much of a Utopia a government free society would be, but the truth of the matter is whenever there is a moment to seize a position of power or authority, someone will be more than happy to dick over everyone else to get to the top and claim it.
Presiona para expandir...

Humans are inherently hierarchical, and inherently social. They also have a instinctive need to be greedy, and compete for social status. That's my shitty summation of your point.
 
A anarchist society will always be beaten by a organized nation. A anarchist "society" would not have a standing military to defend itself which is critical in a modern war. It would AT BEST have a militia who's only chance of winning would be some vietcong style guerilla warfare.
 
ZeCommissar dijo:
A anarchist society will always be beaten by a organized nation. A anarchist "society" would not have a standing military to defend itself which is critical in a modern war. It would AT BEST have a militia who's only chance of winning would be some vietcong style guerilla warfare.
Presiona para expandir...

But to run a Vietcong style campaign would require hierarchies and organisation....... 🤔
 
Anarchy is opposition to any form of organized government, and it's doomed to fail.

Viktor Suvurov wrote in one of his books about the Soviet Union how stateless states don't work, saying if you gave a bunch of kids a tent, told them to build it, but didn't put one in charge, a leader or leading group would emerge in ten minutes.

It's quasi-instinctive for any animal with any form of intelligence that cannot survive alone to group together thus form a society. Yeah, there are some people who don't need to group together, but if the choice of not forming a society is death, one is gonna form out of mere survival instinct.

Anarchism is horseshit that will not work on anything more than a single person level at best, it cannot function as mass of individuals, that would eventually subvert its very purpose in a very short period of time.
 
It would function like this: I'm in charge of society now, we're no longer anarchy, we're a despotism under me.

Now a few things could happen. Maybe everyone says "OK" and now we're a despotism, no more anarchy.
Maybe everyone says "Fuck you dipshit, you and what army?" Oops they just made a collective decision and are a democracy now. No more anarchy.
Maybe everyone says "Fuck you dipshit, you and what army?" and I shoot them, then the rest of the people hide. Now we just fucking formed two governments, mine, and the democracy in exile. No more anarchy, plus an extra government!

"Anarchy" is just like "Abolishing capitalism". You're taking an innate human behavior (we're a social animal that forms packs, and we also value our time, comfort, and safety) and claiming it's coming from outside. But it doesn't. It has to be artificially put on top of the existing system. How does a region stay an anarchy? Is someone enforcing it?
 
The simple fact is, is that even historically in cases where anarchism reigned for longer term periods eventually they are usurped by some other form of government entirely whether despotic or egalitarian.

Anarchic societies are doomed to failure, because of the inherit flaw in the system which is the lack of structure in a society. Now it can take an existing structured society through a period of instability, because of the basic structures already being established. But the moment that any level of complexity is added in to things, that isn't beyond the basics of survival, it must either have a responsible figure or leader emerge, or else it will cease to function, or revert to a very primitive structure. Neither of which are good for societies.

This goes for infrastructure, things like water and sewage, food distribution and creation, law and order. Unless it's on a naturally smaller scale, and for a shortened period of time, none of these things work without some level of dysfunction or complete failure over an extended period of time.

There is a reason that slab city essentially isn't a fully functioning society, despite having existed for many years, and previously having had the means to fulfill the needs of a basic community. And yet the system since the decommission by the army bases has devolved, not evolved despite having the opportunity to do so.

Because it lacks any form of leadership or enforcement outside of a loose community of volunteers.
Purely voluntary systems don't work, and what happens when you piss off the wrong volunteer, like the person in the desert who controls the water supply.

The black anarchist movements in parts of Spain managed to withstand both Marxist and Franco for an extended period, because the complexity of the society wasn't so complicated that it required more than a basic level of cooperation by the residents of these towns and villages. The society functioned on this basic level, because the systems in place existed before the erasure of the local government, and even then it was not a trade-less society.

They ran the system on a barter system, and law an order was maintained through mutual co-operation and local vigilance. Which in a small scale system is possible, and in cases of severe crime simply meant the lynching of the perpetrator.

There were no areas where the government had a mandate, such as infrastructure and repair that didn't get attended to because it was of benefit to the local peasants to maintain it, and furthermore since the period only lasted 9 to 2 years at most cases before governments re-established control, maintenance during that period wouldn't have required any complex repairs.

Aside from that, the quality of life would not have improved or change from the time of governmental control aside from the perceived removal of bi-laws that affected people on a bureaucratic level. Sure they weren't paying taxes, but since money had no value either, the two elements cancel each other out.

You also have to think that these were peasants living in simple societal village structures, and so there wasn't a high level of complexity to retain or maintain.

Ultimately the experiment came to an end, because other Marxist Anarchist from outside tried to implement a form of government, which led to the towns and villages being conquered by Francoist troops and reprisals against the villages for not having sided with Franco.

Anyone who truly wants a life free from any form of government influences, should either settle a cabin up in Alaska, or change their thinking and support a smaller less involved government to be honest.

If your the type of person that just wants to destroy things, then don't pretend there is an ideology behind it.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo