Anarchy sounds good to me then someone asks “Who’d fix the sewers?”

When I was younger, I believed that it was an ideal worth striving for. Now I don’t have that much faith in people anymore and I think that the best you can ask for is to try to live life your way and stay true to your beliefs and morals as best you can, according to whatever circumstances that you’ve been given.

A lot of people think it means total chaos, but it really just means an opposition to hierarchy.

People living comfortable lives will rationalize any critique of the system away, even if that comfort is built upon emiseration and exploitation.

People calling themselves anarchists seem to reliably be less of a red flag than when they call themselves communists.

I think there’s a lot of sentiment to sympathize with and a lot of ideas to learn about.

Implementation of anarchism seems hard and maybe sometimes a bit naïve, but on the other hand I don’t actually understand the specifics nor is there any one opinion.

Anarvhism refers to a vlass of ideologies moreso than any one in specific.

ITT: Nobody has any idea what any anarchist philosopher ever said or believed and simply thinks it means no rules

They then strut victoriously, thinking they are smarter than every anarchist philosopher who has ever existed because they know that rules matter in a society, not realizing that no anarchist thinker has ever said “let’s just have no rules or organization and just see how it goes based on the vibes”

I thought it was quite cool when I was a teenager. Then I grew up.

I think liberals don’t even know what it means, but insist their opinions on it need to be heard anyways, because all opinions are valid, right?

It seems foolish and young to me. Same as libertarian rules or rule by religious doctrine. None of that shit works. Just shiny little playthings to keep people distracted from real and genuine problems that cause an existential threat to all species living on earth.

Quite literally impossible to implement. Same as true “Libertarianism”. Can’t actually exist.

Look at it this way. You and your neighbours want no government. No taxes. No laws. No “authority” telling you what to do and how to do it. Great!

What happens when the road needs to be fixed? Do you fix just the road in front of your house? Or do you negotiate with your neighbours for you all to pay a fair share to get the entire road done? Congratulations…you just invented government.

So now the road is getting done, but the people doing the work really don’t want to deal with every individual for every particular decision. It’s a much better idea to elect one person to do the communicating. Congratulations…you just invented civics and beaurocracy

This person that you all agreed to handle all of this stuff doesn’t have time anymore to support himself or his family because he’s dealing with your shit, so he demands that each of you pay an amount to keep in able to feed himself while he administrates your “anarchic society.” Congratulations…you just invented taxes

Replace “roads” with literally anything else in a community and the end result is the same. Both Libertarians and Anarchists are fucking morons.

In the absence of other power structures (political, legal, religious, economic, etc) whoever has the means and willingness to do violence will exert their will over others. Unstructured societies always devolve into might makes right.

I think that if humanity can manage to survive long enough, anarchism is inevitable.

It’s essentially the adult stage of human society - the point at which humans collectively and consistently, rather than just individually and situationally, can be trusted to generally do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing and therefore the most reasonable thing to do.

For the time being and the foreseeable future though, humanity is nowhere even close to that. Through the course of history, human society has managed to advance to about the equivalent of adolescence. There’s still a long way to go.

In spite of that, I do identify as an anarchist, but my advocacy is focused on the ideal and the steps humanity as a whole has to take to achieve it. I think it’s plainly obvious that it cannot be implemented, since any mechanism by which it might be inplemented would necessarily violate the very principles that define it. It can only be willingly adopted by each and all (or close enough as makes no meaningful difference), and that point will come whenever (if) it comes.

Technically the whole world runs on pure anarchism. No rules, only those created by local groups. With agreements between some of the groups. Most of it enforced by violence.

Laws only exist because most people believe in them. For the rest they are enforced with violence. I believe that anarchy would result in a similar system. Most people would behave but some would not. To protect everyone eventually some kind of police and laws would form again.

That it’s basically the lefty equivalent to a libertarian. Both of those philosophies seem juvenile to me in a “I don’t want to, and you can’t make me” kind of way. Call me old fashioned, but I like structure as long as it’s not totalitarian. I’m happy to pay taxes as long as they’re going toward the benefit of society. Granted, that largely hasn’t been the case, but I don’t think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

Recent events have also highlighted how much my taxes actually were going toward the betterment of society (though still not nearly enough), and that I had taken them for granted until they were recently axed/defunded.

It depends on the definition

The end goal of civilization.

Stateless, Egalitarian societies.