Anarchism sounds great if you’re a college freshman, but in reality that will devolve into even less progress than we currently have. Obviously there’s no perfect solution, but anarchism has never and will never work at any kind of scale that matters. We need to purge the corruption from our current system and heavily reform it, but at the end of the day it’s going to make more progress than a bunch of screaming college kids.
Oh wow “anarchism is for babies lol” is definitely something I’ve never heard. That’s devastating, I’m going to completely change my whole political outlook.
There are plenty of examples of it working at scale. Let me know if you want more information.
I would love to know where it actually worked at scale, because I’m at least decently well educated in history and I’ve never heard of one instance. The key word here is “scale” by the way, it’s important how you define that.
For some reason your reply never showed up in my notifications. Anyway, I just looked at these. Rojava has explicitly been labeled not anarchist but democratic-confederalism with liberal tendencies. They didn’t do much in terms of running a country or region since 2011 but I’ll read up more on this.
CNT FAI is a union with at most 1.6 million for a few years in the first half of 20th century, that’s neither an actual implementation of anarchism, nor a scale where it is relevant. However once you get to several millions and last for a long time governing (or whatever you want to call it) in a country is when I’d give it some points.
EZLN like you said isn’t even anarchist. I think you like the concept of libertarian socialism, which I also think has some merits if very carefully implemented. The general concept of local leaders controlling their own territory makes sense for the most part, but the problem is how they all are organized to work together.
They are horizontalist and demonstrate that the principles of anarchism work. They are compatible with the anarchist project.
You’re getting very specific and purist with these definitions, but most anarchists are a lot more pragmatic than that. We don’t need something to be explicitly called anarchist to recognise that they are doing a form of anarchism. Tellingly, a lot of successful horizontalist projects are indigenous in nature and don’t spring from a western form of anarchism. That doesn’t mean the concepts don’t work, it just means there are things to learn from them.
Also, if you want to tell me these aren’t horizontalist projects, can you tell me who any of their leaders are? If you can’t name them, it means there’s something anarchist going on, because anarchism literally means “without rulers”.
Also your understanding of the CNT FAI is wrong. It wasn’t just a union, it was part of an anarchist revolution that encompassed 7 to 8 million people that fought a civil war for several years. You can criticize it for its strategic errors, but you can’t say the society didn’t function. It absolutely did.
And this idea that “anarchism doesn’t work” could have been applied to capitalism when it was in its prefigurative stage during feudalism. It doesn’t work, until it does. One thing we can say for sure is that nothing else seems to fucking “work” if by “work” you mean “won’t continue us down the path of complete societal collapse”.
We both agree late stage capitalism is running its course to its natural end of fascism and environmental/economic collapse. Also I agree that democratic capitalists have violently suppressed other forms of governance over the past 150 years. And also yes the current capitalist system will make it hard to try anything else.
However, anarchism hasn’t been shown to be sustainable or immune from the same human weaknesses such as greed, distrust, etc. that plague our current system. There will still be those seeking to gain power over others, profit at the expense of anything else, etc. Also independent local regimes have no system to work with each other. Also democracy and capitalism do have the potential to yield sustainable, controlled outputs but they need some stronger socialist policies along with an actual election system that gives the people power over their leaders. Obviously Citizens United needs to be overturned, along with single donation limits, removal of PACs. Mandated ranked choice voting. Full transparency of voting systems. Outlaw this current form of bribery-ehh- I mean lobbying.
Ultimately human greed and lust for power will always be there, and anarchism doesn’t seem to have valid or robust mechanisms for controlling that. Really if we can just control these two aspects systemically, most other things will fall into line.
edit: also the EZLN leader is Rafael Guillén Vicente. CNT FAI: José Buenaventura Durruti Dumange. Rojava leaders: Îlham Ehmed, Mansur Selum, Amina Omar, Riad Darar
The reason that these ideally anarchist societies (I say ideally because in theory that is how it should work) only developed is because they live close enough to each other to form similar culture and values.
However, you would notice that these ideally anarchist societies are being oppressed or at war with a bigger other societies. It is a common observation as to why anarchism won’t work. A bigger and more war-like society will always try to bully and fight another society if the latter is deemed weak. Like I said on another comment, this is literally anarchism in action.
I concur with the other person that it has to do with scale. Groups living close together may develop ideally anarchist societies. But if you are from such a peaceful grouping and go far enough, the other group from afar may not share the same values as you. Tribalism is still a pervasive natural issue after all, in spite of humans doing all we can to deviate from what we might consider flaws of evolution.
Which groups? What are you talking about? Do you mean the EZLN and Rojava which have successfully resisted the attacks of much larger states and also have millions of people and are still functioning right now?
What do you mean that they’re small and local? They cooperate with one another and act in solidarity across continents. Rojava hosts and benefits from the help of many thousands of international volunteers. Is that what you’re referring to?
What the actual fuck are you talking about? Explain yourself. Literally give me one single fact that explains this claim you’ve made.
And also, are you actually curious to understand what I’m saying here, or are you just trying to tell me I’m wrong without listening? Because I’m noticing a pattern here in the way you’re ignoring what I’m actually saying.
Look, are Rojava and EZLN internationally recognised by other countries? Could they put their guns down and feel at peace knowing that their bigger neighbours won’t subjugate them?
Sorry mate, but this is anarchism in action whether you admit it or not.
Anarchism sounds great if you’re a college freshman, but in reality that will devolve into even less progress than we currently have. Obviously there’s no perfect solution, but anarchism has never and will never work at any kind of scale that matters. We need to purge the corruption from our current system and heavily reform it, but at the end of the day it’s going to make more progress than a bunch of screaming college kids.
Oh wow “anarchism is for babies lol” is definitely something I’ve never heard. That’s devastating, I’m going to completely change my whole political outlook.
There are plenty of examples of it working at scale. Let me know if you want more information.
I would love to know where it actually worked at scale, because I’m at least decently well educated in history and I’ve never heard of one instance. The key word here is “scale” by the way, it’s important how you define that.
Rojava. CNT FAI historically. The EZLN is horizontalist, although they do not describe themselves as anarchist but as an indigenous movement.
Millions of people in each.
For some reason your reply never showed up in my notifications. Anyway, I just looked at these. Rojava has explicitly been labeled not anarchist but democratic-confederalism with liberal tendencies. They didn’t do much in terms of running a country or region since 2011 but I’ll read up more on this.
CNT FAI is a union with at most 1.6 million for a few years in the first half of 20th century, that’s neither an actual implementation of anarchism, nor a scale where it is relevant. However once you get to several millions and last for a long time governing (or whatever you want to call it) in a country is when I’d give it some points.
EZLN like you said isn’t even anarchist. I think you like the concept of libertarian socialism, which I also think has some merits if very carefully implemented. The general concept of local leaders controlling their own territory makes sense for the most part, but the problem is how they all are organized to work together.
They are horizontalist and demonstrate that the principles of anarchism work. They are compatible with the anarchist project.
You’re getting very specific and purist with these definitions, but most anarchists are a lot more pragmatic than that. We don’t need something to be explicitly called anarchist to recognise that they are doing a form of anarchism. Tellingly, a lot of successful horizontalist projects are indigenous in nature and don’t spring from a western form of anarchism. That doesn’t mean the concepts don’t work, it just means there are things to learn from them.
Also, if you want to tell me these aren’t horizontalist projects, can you tell me who any of their leaders are? If you can’t name them, it means there’s something anarchist going on, because anarchism literally means “without rulers”.
Also your understanding of the CNT FAI is wrong. It wasn’t just a union, it was part of an anarchist revolution that encompassed 7 to 8 million people that fought a civil war for several years. You can criticize it for its strategic errors, but you can’t say the society didn’t function. It absolutely did.
And this idea that “anarchism doesn’t work” could have been applied to capitalism when it was in its prefigurative stage during feudalism. It doesn’t work, until it does. One thing we can say for sure is that nothing else seems to fucking “work” if by “work” you mean “won’t continue us down the path of complete societal collapse”.
We both agree late stage capitalism is running its course to its natural end of fascism and environmental/economic collapse. Also I agree that democratic capitalists have violently suppressed other forms of governance over the past 150 years. And also yes the current capitalist system will make it hard to try anything else.
However, anarchism hasn’t been shown to be sustainable or immune from the same human weaknesses such as greed, distrust, etc. that plague our current system. There will still be those seeking to gain power over others, profit at the expense of anything else, etc. Also independent local regimes have no system to work with each other. Also democracy and capitalism do have the potential to yield sustainable, controlled outputs but they need some stronger socialist policies along with an actual election system that gives the people power over their leaders. Obviously Citizens United needs to be overturned, along with single donation limits, removal of PACs. Mandated ranked choice voting. Full transparency of voting systems. Outlaw this current form of bribery-ehh- I mean lobbying.
Ultimately human greed and lust for power will always be there, and anarchism doesn’t seem to have valid or robust mechanisms for controlling that. Really if we can just control these two aspects systemically, most other things will fall into line.
edit: also the EZLN leader is Rafael Guillén Vicente. CNT FAI: José Buenaventura Durruti Dumange. Rojava leaders: Îlham Ehmed, Mansur Selum, Amina Omar, Riad Darar
The reason that these ideally anarchist societies (I say ideally because in theory that is how it should work) only developed is because they live close enough to each other to form similar culture and values.
However, you would notice that these ideally anarchist societies are being oppressed or at war with a bigger other societies. It is a common observation as to why anarchism won’t work. A bigger and more war-like society will always try to bully and fight another society if the latter is deemed weak. Like I said on another comment, this is literally anarchism in action.
I concur with the other person that it has to do with scale. Groups living close together may develop ideally anarchist societies. But if you are from such a peaceful grouping and go far enough, the other group from afar may not share the same values as you. Tribalism is still a pervasive natural issue after all, in spite of humans doing all we can to deviate from what we might consider flaws of evolution.
Which groups? What are you talking about? Do you mean the EZLN and Rojava which have successfully resisted the attacks of much larger states and also have millions of people and are still functioning right now?
What do you mean that they’re small and local? They cooperate with one another and act in solidarity across continents. Rojava hosts and benefits from the help of many thousands of international volunteers. Is that what you’re referring to?
What the actual fuck are you talking about? Explain yourself. Literally give me one single fact that explains this claim you’ve made.
And also, are you actually curious to understand what I’m saying here, or are you just trying to tell me I’m wrong without listening? Because I’m noticing a pattern here in the way you’re ignoring what I’m actually saying.
Looks like you are having cognitive dissonance.
Look, are Rojava and EZLN internationally recognised by other countries? Could they put their guns down and feel at peace knowing that their bigger neighbours won’t subjugate them?
Sorry mate, but this is anarchism in action whether you admit it or not.
So is your answer that you’re not curious to understand what I’m saying because you’ve already decided I’m not worth listening to?