You're viewing a single thread.
Anarchy is the worst a society can devolve into.
And people who believe that certain anarchy "models" can work, know nothing about the psychology of larger groups.
When large groups of people need to live together there needs to be structure and rules that must be respected, and the rules need to be upheld by a governing body.
The best way we have to form that governing body is democracy.Anarchists believe in a government with direct democracy, you are arguing against a strawman
Oh you mean a democracy that isn't flawed like the USA.
Scandinavian countries have direct democracy, as in voting on their representatives directly, and they are in no way anarchist.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.
It's stupid because it's impossible. You could also say it's decidedly insane.
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
this is not a problem in any real world anarchist society that has ever existed
As in none.
There are tons, they just are usually destroyed by outside forces
Oh boy I love how the Freetown Christiania is first on that list. Since that's a place I actually know very well.
You list is bullshit, that's like saying 5 friends are an anarchist society. Those are NOT self governing societies. They are under the rules of countries.
If any are not, they are probably just very small cult like communities.They do not run factories power-plants, electricity grids, infrastructure or anything of any serious scale, and are in no way models for how to run a country.
Freetown Christiania had lots of problems with crime, and they also had huge problem of elitism as in very few people actually decided everything, the power structure is/was very much based on who had lived there from the beginning.
All this anarchy idealism/ideology is bullshit that doesn't work in real self governing societies. Of course it can work for small groups, like what the fuck, just because I live in a street where we help each other, we don't form a government and police for that!
Christiana may have called themselves autonomous, but they never where in any meaningful sense of the word. And the truth is they needed help from criminal rocker gangs to get rid of widespread sales of hard drugs. And later they chose to legalize according to Danish law, and called on help from the real police to get rid of the remaining drug sales. Christiana today a mostly normal part of Copenhagen today, but maybe still influenced more than average by the 70's flower power roots, although there was never any flower power in the way that society was run.
Christiania was always 100% depending on the normal society they existed within, the dependence wasn't superficial either but for EVERYTHING, Jobs, hospitals, doctors, sewage, electricity. Christiania was never much more than a football club deciding to play by their own rules. They can do that, but they still live in a society where everything is governed by the rules of the country and the city.I'm sorry, but your dream is an impossible lie. And you just proved your complete inability to demonstrate any self governing society of any significant size that function by a system of anarchy. By significant size, I'd say it needs to be at least 50000 people, to have any significance to show it as a working model at a scale above a tiny tribal community where everybody mostly know each other.
I don't know anything about or care about christiana, so, i'll just assume you're right about all that, but it really doesn't matter. Problems with one society do not mean the ideology is fundamentally flawed, it just means that society was flawed, you'll have to demonstrate issues with the fundamental ideology that apply to all anarchist societies, not some of them.
"They are usually destroyed by outside forces"
By significant size, I’d say it needs to be at least 50000 people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
again you haven't even begun to research the topic, but are very confident.
before you say, revolutionary catalonia doesn't exist anymore, yeah, that's what happens when fascists destroy you with a military, you'll note none of the issue was internal politics...
Every single capitalist country immediately dogpiles and tries to destroy any anarchist movement, that doesn't mean anarchism is fundamentally flawed.
you’ll have to demonstrate issues with the fundamental ideology that apply to all anarchist societies
No you have to show it actually works, the idea of anarchy goes back to ancient Greece, and there has never been a functioning society based on it. Because it doesn't function.
the autonomous region of Catalonia in northeast Spain was controlled or largely influenced by various anarchist, syndicalist, communist, and socialist trade unions, parties, and militias of the Spanish Civil War era.
Anarchists enter the government
So it wasn't anarchist, it was merely one among many groups, it had a traditional government, and it lasted for only 2 years.
again you haven’t even begun to research the topic, but are very confident.
I've accumulated experience about the topic over time since the 70's. I've read philosophical books about forms of government, I've examined MANY types of governance, and examined why Communism works so poorly, while Social democracies seem to be just about the best form of government we have achieved yet. This is in combination with my interest in national economy, and psychology from an evolutionary perspective.
Don't you try to claim I haven't examined the subject, when national governance is a high interest of mine through about 50 years now.
And yes based on my experiences it's extremely clear that anarchy is not a realistically functional form of governance. Anarchy for bigger societies is ONLY something countries devolve to, for instance after a war, and things ONLY get better when a proper government is restored. And by better I mean not killing each other, and not die of starvation, and the economy working and access to hospitals and education. All the things we normally take for granted in developed societies.I've presented to you the LACK of anarchist societies of scale as an indication it does not work. This means there is no proof it works, and since the idea and principles are clearly not working even in theory in my opinion, the lack of evidence to the contrary mean I see Absolutely no reason to believe it can work.
You have shown NOTHING to make a plausible argument for anarchy, on the contrary everything I've been shown by you and others turn out to be clearly flawed and not support anything that is claimed.
Again Anarchy as an idea dates back to ancient Greece for fucks sake, and there is NO society of scale in history to my knowledge that has proven it works even partially. It's very easy to prove me wrong, because if there is, all you have to do is provide a link to said society.
Many things have been tried for the past 2000 years around the globe, if Anarchy which has been a known theoretical model for all that time actually worked, it should be very widespread by now.
Every single capitalist country immediately dogpiles and tries to destroy any anarchist movement,
This is so much bullshit. the modern form of capitalism is only 5-600 years old. EVERY society before that cannot have been oppressed by capitalism.
Capitalism also isn't a form of governance, it's a method to facilitate economic activity. Which is why ALL democracies are capitalist. Capitalism may suck hard, but we have nothing to replace it with yet.
Anarchy is not an alternative to capitalism, on the contrary. Anarchy as an idea was always about pursuing individual interests. The exact opposite of socialism. To facilitate the pursuance of individual interests, capitalism in a democracy is the best model we know of.
When large groups of people need to live together there needs to be structure and rules that must be respected, and the rules need to be upheld by a governing body.
you can't prove this.
As I stated, people defending anarchy doesn't understand the psychology of larger groups.
I can only say that EVERY successful society has a central government. If Anarchy could work as well, how come there are no successful anarchy societies?
Not as in so few, but NONE! If it should work so well, why has no country ever even tried? When a country is thrown into anarchy because the government is removed, and nothing replaces it. It always turns out the same. Extreme violence, theft and hunger.
That's what is shown to happen when Anarchy reigns.If Anarchy could work as well, how come there are no successful anarchy societies.
there are
Bullshit.
exarcheia, the Paris commune, and the swamp maroons come right to mind, as well as anabaptists
This is what I get when I search "Exarcheia paris"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exarcheia
In December 2008, the murder of 15-year-old Alexandros Grigoropoulos by a policeman in Exarcheia caused rioting throughout Greece.
I have no idea what you are trying to argue here, but as far as I can tell Exarcheia is neither self governing or has anarchy and it isn't in Paris, but in Greece???
You are extremely sloppy at trying to arguing your point.
if you don't know exarcheia and the Paris commune are separate societies, you're not qualified to discuss the practicality of if anarchism
can only say that EVERY successful society has a central government.
you don't define success.
I absolutely do, as in NOT being dominated by Extreme violence, theft and hunger.
you're describing capitalism
So how do you imagine Anarchy could work without capitalism. Even communist countries have a capitalist element.
communism is stateless. whatever you're talking about isn't communist. anarchy works through mutual aid.
You are not making any sense whatsoever, you can't have a society call it state or otherwise, work by one simple mechanism. It's simply not possible.
How would mutual aid create a factory? How is it decided who gets the products? How does the factory pay for the resources and work they need?
Mutual aid is not a functioning system, as I said, believing this nonsense shows zero understanding of how larger social groups forming societies work.You are not making any sense whatsoever
because youre not qualified to be in this discussion
I don't disagree... But that's not how society operates historically or currently.
Closest we ever came to that us post ww2 era in some countries.
It has regressed into the circus we got eight now since then.
Life is untenable for the majority already, it will get worse.
I'm not sure, but I think maybe you are using USA as the norm, but USA is not a good example of a democracy, it is ranked as a FLAWED democracy. And it's been my opinion for more than a decade that USA is ranked way too high. An essentially 2 party system is not a real democracy.
Democracies that actually work are for instance the Scandinavian countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_IndexLife is untenable for the majority already, it will get worse.
All the countries with the highest democracy ranks, have way less poverty than USA, also when USA is the far richer country, all have healthcare for all, free education, and also generally people have high satisfaction about their lives.
I agree USA has devolved badly in many ways since the start of the 80's. Hopefully it will turn around at some point. But it's hard to see it taking on a lasting course for improvements without a pretty serious modernization of their democracy, and cleaning up the corruption and exaggerated power of the super rich.
same thing that US oligarchs are doing within US is happening across OECD jurisdictions.
ie a broad assault on housing, education, healthcare and over all quality of life.
Fertility rates speak for themselves... including in the normie's beloved scandi geos.
Swedish state is being dismantled as we speak too... and check this out, migrants are being used to do this lol can't make this shit up.
UK is turned into more dystopian version of US, outright war on the poors.
German's are having hard time maintaining their indsutrial base due to poor economic policy planning due to muttie Angela good work.
France's Macron is a neo lyb acolyte. EE is doing decent economically and developing but they are just now hitting EU avgs.
neo lib regimes are working OT on dismantling any safety net they can get their hands on. "Democracy" aint stopping them, they polarized everything into America style left/right and gutting nations from within while making a few parasites can get wealthy