Anarchism has failsafes for this since hierarchical structures are by definition not welcome.
How does it enforce that unwelcomeness? As much as I ideologically align with anarchism in principle, I don’t see the mechanism for it to preserve what is and isn’t “allowed” under it’s principles. Especially not the ad hoc, spontaneous, nominal anarchism that would result if you burned the current system to the ground.
What stops a charismatic figurehead from rallying the portion of the population that finds authoritarianism comforting, and starting their own fascist hierarchy? The current system may not be perfect, but at least the checks and balances provide some obstacle to despotism. What do you replace that material obstacle with? “Hey! You’re not supposed to do that!”?
I am familiar with the literature. As I said, I identify with it ideologically. It presents philosophical ideals and optimistic, aspirational hypotheticals, built on microscopic examples. Speak for yourself. You tell me how a population not yet widely versed in, and committed to, stable anarcho-communism, prevents the rise of authoritarianism in the ashes of our system, recently burned.
Not a stable anarchic society, a chaotic power vacuum; the transitory state of lawlessness. Explain to me how a stable anarchy spontaneously emerges, because I can show you dozens of historic examples of how authoritarianism spontaneously emerges.
I’ve been working 12 hours, and I’m too tired to express myself to someone who’s done nothing but interpret my comments in the most exhaustingly inhospitable manner and has done nothing but fling irrelevant “gotchas” and other troll-like rudeness at me for days.
Refer to my other comments. I’ve said what I said.
Edit: If you were familiar with the literature, you wouldn’t be asking such baby questions and making clearly incorrect claims about anarchist societies when that book I linked is teeming with examples that contradict your statement.
ITT you’ve done nothing but rabidly defend the status quo and our genocidal system, and anyone who believes you’re anarchist or even leftist is a fool. You’re obviously a status quo defending neoliberal troll, and you’re part of the problem.
Despite your hostile attitude, I’ve been nothing but patient and matter-of-fact. You’re the one throwing around accusations of supporting genocide, among other varieties of unsubstantiated name-calling. Search my comments for a single similar accusation, there’s only been one rude troll in this conversation.
that book I linked is teeming with examples that contradict your statement.
That’s exactly my point though. If it works so well, why are all the examples short-lived footnotes of history? If the literature is to be believed, the world should be an anarchist utopia by now. Why isn’t it? Why didn’t any of those success stories stick the landing on a scale larger than a minor metropolitan commune? What has stopped the spread of true, pure democracy? What justification do you have to believe that it will succeed this time, if we just burn everything down?
Recognizing the material obstacles to anarchism doesn’t mean I don’t believe in it. It just means I’m not foolish enough to delude myself into thinking it’ll just spring up spontaneously from some impassioned violent insurrection. It’s gonna take epic quantities of time, work, and education. Any flash-in-the-pan approach is going to fizzle out, be it by authoritarian oppression, disorganization, or the natural decay of dwindling commitment. “Burn it all down” is not an educated strategy.
Yes? And that history is consistent with what I’ve said. You clearly haven’t read any of it, even this comment chain.
Where have been the “guns blazing” defenses of Biden? All I’ve offered is a sober analysis of the be efficacy of various methods of trying to effect Leftism.
I have made several points which you have chosen not to engage with because they reveal your behaviors to be nothing but whinging and bluster. Your attempts to “educate” me have been ineffective because in every case either 1. I was already familiar with your education material and found it lacking in the practical implementation department or 2. your attempts were devoid of any rational content.
Keep calling other leftists who disagree with you “neoliberal trolls”. What exactly is your position? That the “status quo” needs to be dismantled and replaced with something but what? Democracy is out obviously because of the tyranny of the masses, they don’t know what’s best (remember slavery?), and even most of the Leftists are apparently neoliberal trolls.
So what you’re saying is that the future system needs to be the one that conforms precisely to what you, and an extremely small portion of people who exactly agree with you and drive your purity tests, have decided that it should be. Whatever you call that system, materially. It looks a whole lot like authoritarianism.
Well, those aren’t comments I made, and are in fact the exact opposite of comments I made seeing as they’re removed comments, but I’ll bite nonetheless, and fill in summaries of the actual comments these refer to:
Debatebro = not being a tankie sycophant on hexbear. I’m unashamed.
Transphobia = saying that maybe gender roles themselves are an archaic concept that only obstruct true equality. That while anyone is free to dress and act and present as they please, the more we try to tie that to the gender concept, the more we implicitly legitimize sex discrimination. I’m likewise unashamed.
You’ve successfully shown that two reactionary echo-chambers are in fact reactionary echo-chambers. But I get it, anything to avoid acknowledging or engaging criticisms you’re unable to refute. I have indeed noticed that you’re continually trying to divert attention away from the same questions every time I ask them.
You still haven’t answered how stable anarchy triumphs over authoritarianism after you “burn it all to the ground” (nevermind how you do that in the first place). I’ve, shockingly I know, read Gelderloos before, and he does not answer it either. If it is indeed a baby question, it should have a simple answer.
But if my experience holds, you won’t give one. You’ll deflect again, you’ll say I’m not worth the time, that you’re “not reading all that”, you’ll throw out words like “sea-lioning” and “bad-faith”, you’ll accuse me of being a secret fascist or a Neo-lib or some other go-to slur, you’ll find other links to other texts that wax philosophical or provide short-lived examples while skirting around how short-lived they were, or any other tactic you can use to divert attention from your inability to answer the most basic, fundamental questions of implementation.
How does it enforce that unwelcomeness? As much as I ideologically align with anarchism in principle, I don’t see the mechanism for it to preserve what is and isn’t “allowed” under it’s principles. Especially not the ad hoc, spontaneous, nominal anarchism that would result if you burned the current system to the ground.
What stops a charismatic figurehead from rallying the portion of the population that finds authoritarianism comforting, and starting their own fascist hierarchy? The current system may not be perfect, but at least the checks and balances provide some obstacle to despotism. What do you replace that material obstacle with? “Hey! You’re not supposed to do that!”?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
I am familiar with the literature. As I said, I identify with it ideologically. It presents philosophical ideals and optimistic, aspirational hypotheticals, built on microscopic examples. Speak for yourself. You tell me how a population not yet widely versed in, and committed to, stable anarcho-communism, prevents the rise of authoritarianism in the ashes of our system, recently burned.
Not a stable anarchic society, a chaotic power vacuum; the transitory state of lawlessness. Explain to me how a stable anarchy spontaneously emerges, because I can show you dozens of historic examples of how authoritarianism spontaneously emerges.
I’ve been working 12 hours, and I’m too tired to express myself to someone who’s done nothing but interpret my comments in the most exhaustingly inhospitable manner and has done nothing but fling irrelevant “gotchas” and other troll-like rudeness at me for days.
Refer to my other comments. I’ve said what I said.
Edit: If you were familiar with the literature, you wouldn’t be asking such baby questions and making clearly incorrect claims about anarchist societies when that book I linked is teeming with examples that contradict your statement.
ITT you’ve done nothing but rabidly defend the status quo and our genocidal system, and anyone who believes you’re anarchist or even leftist is a fool. You’re obviously a status quo defending neoliberal troll, and you’re part of the problem.
Despite your hostile attitude, I’ve been nothing but patient and matter-of-fact. You’re the one throwing around accusations of supporting genocide, among other varieties of unsubstantiated name-calling. Search my comments for a single similar accusation, there’s only been one rude troll in this conversation.
That’s exactly my point though. If it works so well, why are all the examples short-lived footnotes of history? If the literature is to be believed, the world should be an anarchist utopia by now. Why isn’t it? Why didn’t any of those success stories stick the landing on a scale larger than a minor metropolitan commune? What has stopped the spread of true, pure democracy? What justification do you have to believe that it will succeed this time, if we just burn everything down?
Recognizing the material obstacles to anarchism doesn’t mean I don’t believe in it. It just means I’m not foolish enough to delude myself into thinking it’ll just spring up spontaneously from some impassioned violent insurrection. It’s gonna take epic quantities of time, work, and education. Any flash-in-the-pan approach is going to fizzle out, be it by authoritarian oppression, disorganization, or the natural decay of dwindling commitment. “Burn it all down” is not an educated strategy.
Your comment history is public. Anyone who checks can see what you are.
A leftist wouldn’t come into a thread guns blazing to defend someone like Biden.
You’ve made no points, and you’ve not been patient in the least. Everything I’ve done to try to educate you has been like water off a duck’s back.
Neoliberal troll.
Yes? And that history is consistent with what I’ve said. You clearly haven’t read any of it, even this comment chain.
Where have been the “guns blazing” defenses of Biden? All I’ve offered is a sober analysis of the be efficacy of various methods of trying to effect Leftism.
I have made several points which you have chosen not to engage with because they reveal your behaviors to be nothing but whinging and bluster. Your attempts to “educate” me have been ineffective because in every case either 1. I was already familiar with your education material and found it lacking in the practical implementation department or 2. your attempts were devoid of any rational content.
Keep calling other leftists who disagree with you “neoliberal trolls”. What exactly is your position? That the “status quo” needs to be dismantled and replaced with something but what? Democracy is out obviously because of the tyranny of the masses, they don’t know what’s best (remember slavery?), and even most of the Leftists are apparently neoliberal trolls.
So what you’re saying is that the future system needs to be the one that conforms precisely to what you, and an extremely small portion of people who exactly agree with you and drive your purity tests, have decided that it should be. Whatever you call that system, materially. It looks a whole lot like authoritarianism.
😬
Well, those aren’t comments I made, and are in fact the exact opposite of comments I made seeing as they’re removed comments, but I’ll bite nonetheless, and fill in summaries of the actual comments these refer to:
Debatebro = not being a tankie sycophant on hexbear. I’m unashamed.
Transphobia = saying that maybe gender roles themselves are an archaic concept that only obstruct true equality. That while anyone is free to dress and act and present as they please, the more we try to tie that to the gender concept, the more we implicitly legitimize sex discrimination. I’m likewise unashamed.
You’ve successfully shown that two reactionary echo-chambers are in fact reactionary echo-chambers. But I get it, anything to avoid acknowledging or engaging criticisms you’re unable to refute. I have indeed noticed that you’re continually trying to divert attention away from the same questions every time I ask them.
You still haven’t answered how stable anarchy triumphs over authoritarianism after you “burn it all to the ground” (nevermind how you do that in the first place). I’ve, shockingly I know, read Gelderloos before, and he does not answer it either. If it is indeed a baby question, it should have a simple answer.
But if my experience holds, you won’t give one. You’ll deflect again, you’ll say I’m not worth the time, that you’re “not reading all that”, you’ll throw out words like “sea-lioning” and “bad-faith”, you’ll accuse me of being a secret fascist or a Neo-lib or some other go-to slur, you’ll find other links to other texts that wax philosophical or provide short-lived examples while skirting around how short-lived they were, or any other tactic you can use to divert attention from your inability to answer the most basic, fundamental questions of implementation.