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.
I don’t expect elections to fix things, but it’s the tool I have to contribute to positive change. Even if that change is slow, meandering, messy, and two steps forward and one step back.
The most boring sentence you’ll read today: my hope is that you’ll be able to foster good ideas in social networks and then be able to make positive change by putting those ideas on the ballot in elections that work ;)
J.2.2: Why do anarchists reject voting as a means for change? Simply because electioneering does not work. History is littered with examples of radicals being voted into office only to become as, or even more, conservative than the politicians they replaced.
J.2.5: At its most basic, anarchists support abstentionism because “participation in elections means the transfer of one’s will and decisions to another, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of anarchism.” [Emma Goldman, Vision on Fire, p. 89]
J.2.8: As Emma Goldman pointed out, "if the Anarchists were strong enough to swing the elections to the Left, they must also have been strong enough to rally the workers to a general strike, or even a series of strikes […]
But I’m fine with people ignoring these considering the circumstances of the american election. It could be said that the looming threat is great enough that stopping it should be a concern.
But still I don’t think america will change FPTP. It would rather collapse. The parties in power have too much to lose. It would only work if you managed to get the currently non-voting population to back election change in a big block. Maybe a petition signed by most who don’t vote will get their attention but it seems unlikely to make something like that.
It is at this point I should probably mention that I’m European and so am just looking at this as a spectator.
Then how do anarchists get their ideas implemented? Strikes and similar measures?
Yeah, changing FPTP seems like a pretty tall order. But I believe that several US states have changed their election system, so it might happen from the bottom through the states. But that will take time, and the US situation seems to be getting increasingly precarious.
Anarchists should get their ideas implemented outside of the state. Build collective structures that exists separately from the state. Start from the ground up. Collectivize some farms. Then get some logistic collectives. Then start up collective food courts in a couple of cities. All functioning in a federation. Create a completely collective food distribution chain. Then start expanding it. No state needed.
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.
Wise quote, by the way. Thanks for sharing :)
I don’t expect elections to fix things, but it’s the tool I have to contribute to positive change. Even if that change is slow, meandering, messy, and two steps forward and one step back.
The most boring sentence you’ll read today: my hope is that you’ll be able to foster good ideas in social networks and then be able to make positive change by putting those ideas on the ballot in elections that work ;)
found the AFAQ questions starting from https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionJ.html#secj22. They are quite long but they do make a lot of good points.
But I’m fine with people ignoring these considering the circumstances of the american election. It could be said that the looming threat is great enough that stopping it should be a concern.
But still I don’t think america will change FPTP. It would rather collapse. The parties in power have too much to lose. It would only work if you managed to get the currently non-voting population to back election change in a big block. Maybe a petition signed by most who don’t vote will get their attention but it seems unlikely to make something like that.
It is at this point I should probably mention that I’m European and so am just looking at this as a spectator.
Then how do anarchists get their ideas implemented? Strikes and similar measures?
Yeah, changing FPTP seems like a pretty tall order. But I believe that several US states have changed their election system, so it might happen from the bottom through the states. But that will take time, and the US situation seems to be getting increasingly precarious.
The US demands too much attention…
Anarchists should get their ideas implemented outside of the state. Build collective structures that exists separately from the state. Start from the ground up. Collectivize some farms. Then get some logistic collectives. Then start up collective food courts in a couple of cities. All functioning in a federation. Create a completely collective food distribution chain. Then start expanding it. No state needed.