Are you aiming to have 350 million self proclaimed kings that do as they dam will please and think you will be able to have a functioning society with functioning infrastructure and functioning services?
Anarchy is not the lack of society. It is the lack of authority.
It is not the lack of responsibility.
It is not do whatever you like.
It is society based on strong interpersonal relationships formed and maintained without authority. Everyone is responsible for everyone else and no-one gets to abuse others (as that would be archic).
Yes, I agree that there are enticing ideas in anarchy. But I can also see that “wholesale” anarchy won’t work in the world we live in. I can see that because the fascists are trying to create anarchy as a state it’s easier for them to abuse.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t ideas from anarchy worth working with. I’m sure there are ideas from anarchy that could improve society - if they are implemented in a way that works.
I hope you know how stupid this sentence sounds to me.
Anarchy is the opposition to hierarchy (or just archy if you’re in a hurry). The state is a collection of institutions with the clear purpose of maintaining a divide between the rulers and the ruled. It is by definition archic. Just like capitalism. just like fascism.
The idea that anarchy won’t work in the world we live in comes from a lack of faith in people and the future. Sure it will require effort. It will take time to educate people. But to say it’s impossible is to give up on the idea of a better world.
I don’t see how trying to “create anarchy as a state” can use state in any other meaning.
“create a state of anarchy” would work but that’s not how it’s phrased.
Looking more at the comment I could also see it as two separate sentences that could also work: “[…] create anarchy. as a state it’s […]”. But I jumped to explaining what anarchy is because it’s so common for people to not know.
I hope you know how stupid this sentence sounds to me.
I hope you don’t expect me to care. I hope you know that state has more than one meaning. I hope you know that you misunderstood.
The idea that anarchy won’t work in the world we live in comes from a lack of faith in people and the future. Sure it will require effort. It will take time to educate people. But to say it’s impossible is to give up on the idea of a better world.
You refer to fascists, yes? We agree that fascists exist, yes? Do you expect fascists to agree to be educated in and conform to these ideas? That is one example.
Yeah I guess I did. I just saw that collection of words and my mind jumped to “Lib said dumb thing”.
You refer to fascists, yes?
I refer to people. Everybody.
Do you expect fascists to agree to be educated in and conform to these ideas?
The ones alive right now? Probably not, but who knows. I don’t have a solution against the tide of fascism rising in the states. The only one I can think of goes against my principles as a pacifist. But I believe that humans are a result of the conditions they are raised in. Some conditions create fascists, others create anarchists. I just want there to be more of the latter and less of the former.
But I believe that humans are a result of the conditions they are raised in. Some conditions create fascists, others create anarchists. I just want there to be more of the latter and less of the former.
I too believe that the conditions we are raised in, and live in, have a big impact on us and our outlook on the world. And I too would rather see more anarchists and less (preferably none) fascists.
But, for me, the numbers and diversity of humans underscores how big a task it is to enact change in the world. Bringing to mind the saying “How do you eat a horse/elephant/whale? One small piece at a time” - even if that process can feel infuriatingly slow.
And this is where, for me, the election system, if fixed, can be the catalyst for change. The first past the post, winner takes it all, indirect election through the electoral college don’t seem to do much good in the world. A system where it’s possible to give support to other than the two major candidates without risking indirectly supporting the greater of two evils would, for me, be a major improvement.
But that’s just my two cents. I have no hope of seeing a perfect world in my lifetime. But if you can push the world to a slightly better trajectory you’d have done a great thing, even if it’s possible to imagine an even better trajectory.
But in regards to the election I’m meh. Yeah it would probably benefit but at the end of the day voting is not radical action. Do it if you think it helps but don’t expect it to fix things. As I have said in elsewhere in this thread people should be creating strong social networks. That is anarchism. That can create change. Elections don’t. I remember reading about this in the AFAQ but can’t find it currently.
Are you aiming to have 350 million self proclaimed kings that do as they dam will please and think you will be able to have a functioning society with functioning infrastructure and functioning services?
And do you think that state of affairs is not one where people will abuse the (lack of) system for their own gains and the detriment of others?
Anarchy is not the lack of society. It is the lack of authority.
It is not the lack of responsibility.
It is not do whatever you like.
It is society based on strong interpersonal relationships formed and maintained without authority. Everyone is responsible for everyone else and no-one gets to abuse others (as that would be archic).
if you want to read further here is a link: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca1
Yes, I agree that there are enticing ideas in anarchy. But I can also see that “wholesale” anarchy won’t work in the world we live in. I can see that because the fascists are trying to create anarchy as a state it’s easier for them to abuse.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t ideas from anarchy worth working with. I’m sure there are ideas from anarchy that could improve society - if they are implemented in a way that works.
I hope you know how stupid this sentence sounds to me.
Anarchy is the opposition to hierarchy (or just archy if you’re in a hurry). The state is a collection of institutions with the clear purpose of maintaining a divide between the rulers and the ruled. It is by definition archic. Just like capitalism. just like fascism.
The idea that anarchy won’t work in the world we live in comes from a lack of faith in people and the future. Sure it will require effort. It will take time to educate people. But to say it’s impossible is to give up on the idea of a better world.
I hope you know that state has more than one meaning.
I don’t see how trying to “create anarchy as a state” can use state in any other meaning.
“create a state of anarchy” would work but that’s not how it’s phrased.
Looking more at the comment I could also see it as two separate sentences that could also work: “[…] create anarchy. as a state it’s […]”. But I jumped to explaining what anarchy is because it’s so common for people to not know.
I hope you don’t expect me to care. I hope you know that state has more than one meaning. I hope you know that you misunderstood.
You refer to fascists, yes? We agree that fascists exist, yes? Do you expect fascists to agree to be educated in and conform to these ideas? That is one example.
Yeah I guess I did. I just saw that collection of words and my mind jumped to “Lib said dumb thing”.
I refer to people. Everybody.
The ones alive right now? Probably not, but who knows. I don’t have a solution against the tide of fascism rising in the states. The only one I can think of goes against my principles as a pacifist. But I believe that humans are a result of the conditions they are raised in. Some conditions create fascists, others create anarchists. I just want there to be more of the latter and less of the former.
I too believe that the conditions we are raised in, and live in, have a big impact on us and our outlook on the world. And I too would rather see more anarchists and less (preferably none) fascists.
But, for me, the numbers and diversity of humans underscores how big a task it is to enact change in the world. Bringing to mind the saying “How do you eat a horse/elephant/whale? One small piece at a time” - even if that process can feel infuriatingly slow.
And this is where, for me, the election system, if fixed, can be the catalyst for change. The first past the post, winner takes it all, indirect election through the electoral college don’t seem to do much good in the world. A system where it’s possible to give support to other than the two major candidates without risking indirectly supporting the greater of two evils would, for me, be a major improvement.
But that’s just my two cents. I have no hope of seeing a perfect world in my lifetime. But if you can push the world to a slightly better trajectory you’d have done a great thing, even if it’s possible to imagine an even better trajectory.
You reminded me of this quote from an andrewism video. https://youtu.be/lrTzjaXskUU&t=3090. I actually went and dug up the original.
But in regards to the election I’m meh. Yeah it would probably benefit but at the end of the day voting is not radical action. Do it if you think it helps but don’t expect it to fix things. As I have said in elsewhere in this thread people should be creating strong social networks. That is anarchism. That can create change. Elections don’t. I remember reading about this in the AFAQ but can’t find it currently.