4 ms·

Here is my argument against anarchism as some alternative to what we have. We ARE living in the end state of anarchism. We know how people will organize when t

Here is my argument against anarchism as some alternative to what we have. We ARE living in the end state of anarchism. We know how people will organize when there is no existing coercive power structure; they will form themselves into groups with rules and laws and enforcement. How do we know this? Because it is what people have done, over and over and over, when in that situation. If all of the government were to suddenly disappear, groups would start to form, power would collect and disperse and reorganize, and certain people who are very good at that game (or have the right allies) will rise to leadership. The end result will be some sort of stable-ish arrangement of groups who control different areas and... here we are.

the42thdoctor 6y ago
As long a group does not try to conquer another and everyone is free to change groups, there's no problems with it.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  You are ‘free’ to change groups, but most groups have a process for joining, and not everyone who wants to join is able. And you will have to move to that group’s territory. Also, I am not sure what you mean by ‘no problems with it’.... this is an anarchy, there is no one to bring those problems to. Some people trying to conquer others is just a part of being in an anarchy. Some people want to conquer.
leftyted 6y ago
I think you're right. But I also think that "anarchists" are actually after the stage where people "form themselves into groups with rules and laws and enforcement". They don't really want anarchy, they want a "reconstitution". And I can understand why. There seem to be limits on how much a society can change after its constitution. It can change, but over time it carries more and more baggage. In order for significant change, a society has to be reconstituted. There has to be a rupture, a new chapter, etc. I think anarchists are instinctively seeking the potentiality, the excitement that comes with that rupture.

the42thdoctor 6y ago

As long a group does not try to conquer another and everyone is free to change groups, there's no problems with it.

cortesoft 6y ago
You are ‘free’ to change groups, but most groups have a process for joining, and not everyone who wants to join is able. And you will have to move to that group’s territory. Also, I am not sure what you mean by ‘no problems with it’.... this is an anarchy, there is no one to bring those problems to. Some people trying to conquer others is just a part of being in an anarchy. Some people want to conquer.

leftyted 6y ago

I think you're right. But I also think that "anarchists" are actually after the stage where people "form themselves into groups with rules and laws and enforcement". They don't really want anarchy, they want a "reconstitution". And I can understand why. There seem to be limits on how much a society can change after its constitution. It can change, but over time it carries more and more baggage. In order for significant change, a society has to be reconstituted. There has to be a rupture, a new chapter, etc. I think anarchists are instinctively seeking the potentiality, the excitement that comes with that rupture.