4 ms·

> The second you mentioned 'boomers', you mentioned what is very specifically an American phenomenon. I used boomer as a shorthand for "person rooted in the ol

> The second you mentioned 'boomers', you mentioned what is very specifically an American phenomenon. I used boomer as a shorthand for "person rooted in the old ways" all over the world, not just US older citizens. > Of course, like every other generation since, for thousands and thousands of years, once they aged they became just like those they wanted to replace. Yes, they both sold out and are watching from the bleachers as things get progressively worse (rate of home ownership, food stamp usage, life expectancy). Don't tell me what they did in their early teens/twenties absolves them from criticism. > However, what you are suggesting is that people will simply "all get along". OK, this response has put me firmly in the "you need to really read about anarchism a bit, bbarnett" camp. Anarchism doesn't magically will away human tendencies to lie, cheat and want to have power over others. It simply turns the tables on illegitimate authority. A 2 min browse over Wikipedia could have netted you: "anarchists are opposed to irrational (e.g., illegitimate) authority, in other words, hierarchy – hierarchy being the institutionalization of authority within a society." For anarchists, the centralization of political power is the cause of cronyism and ineffective representative democracy. Practical solutions include decentralization and strengthening of local power. As for police work, community policing and other proposals are part of anarchist manifestos. It doesn't take a genius to realize democracy as it stands today has failed us. Stricter gun control, for example, is something the overwhelming majority of US voters want and yet it will probably never be enacted. The problem is centralization, the problem is authority without legitimacy. Anarchism doesn't want to abolish the rule of law, it aims to humanize it. It has nothing to do with a mythical need to change human nature - in fact, it gels with it much more than the current status quo. Of course, like socialism, the word has been tainted over the years. But before you criticize it further as a "mad fantasy", you should probably know what it is you're criticizing. This is a good book to get you started https://www.amazon.com/Fragments-Anarchist-Anthropology-Paradigm-Graeber/dp/0972819649 https://www.amazon.com/Fragments-Anarchist-Anthropology-Para...

bbarnett 6y ago
If you've read my other posts, and several others around here, then I think you'll see a consistent theme. That is, for anarchism to work, you need people to simply "all get along". You do. You really, honestly do. All of the methods which anarchists list to deal with rapists, murderers, or even just a guy that stands up and says "OK, the 10 of us have decided we're going to form a democratic government, and you're all part of it", don't seem to hold water. For example, that last one. You live in a community with 100 people, under anarchism. Those 10 stand up. They state that they run the place. They have guns. Now what? And what if that number is 40 out of 60? I've heard "shunning", "banishment", and I've heard "hired guns". I've also heard of "local police power", yet that involves government, in that, you need to pay and organize and on and on and on. And all your concerns leak therein. I think you need to be honest with yourself. The "old ways" you speak of, are pretty much accepted by people 10 to 100. If you think that "most people under (what?) 30? 40? 25? believe in anarchism, you are sadly mistaken. And there is a reason for that. I've listed them, others have, but all you care to espouse is that "I don't like the current governmental system" and "we'll just handle it without organized government".
- bantunes 6y ago
  Your failure to see past your preconceived notions in this is a bit baffling. > That is, for anarchism to work, you need people to simply "all get along". For current society to work, we all also have to get along, right? I walk down the street nobody robs or kills me, my boss pays me at the end of the month, the power company supplies me with a service as long as I pay for it... aren't we all "getting along"? Of course, there are fringe players, but they are fringe. Anarchism doesn't magically assume everyone everywhere is a well-intentioned player for it to work, no more than capitalism. > You live in a community with 100 people, under anarchism. Those 10 stand up. They state that they run the place. They have guns. Now what? How would this be different under capitalism, if 10% of a community rose up with guns? Answer is the same as with anarchism: people would fight back. I don't understand how this is hard to comprehend. It's called Anarchism, not Pacifism. Do you really think anarchists just roll with the punches with everything bad thrown at them? How can you even think that's possible to propose as a system? Anarchists don't believe, however, in a lap-dog class of the system as the Police exist today. Individuals can be chosen to serve or volunteer as community defense agents, since as I've mentioned _illegitimate_ authority is what Anarchism rails against. > yet that involves government, in that, you need to pay and organize and on and on and on. Anarchism is not 100% opposed to systems of governance - it only mandates they are fairer than the current ones. Community councils, if agreed upon by said community, are valid. Just not imposed on them. > The "old ways" you speak of, are pretty much accepted by people 10 to 100 So was Feudalism - your point? > If you think that "most people under (what?) 30? 40? 25? believe in anarchism, you are sadly mistaken. Have I said that? I said as conservatives give away to newer generations, those will be more amenable to different systems of government (precisely because the current one isn't working for them). > I've listed them, others have, but all you care to espouse is that "I don't like the current governmental system" and "we'll just handle it without organized government". I don't think you can vote the Anarchists in and from Sunday to Monday we go from late-state capitalism to anarchism. It's a process, all deep change is - we're seeing the end of a neoliberalization process that started in the 70s. But to think we're living in the best system we can because "it's accepted by people" is really poor, and a capitulation to a system that is visibly cracking. But don't mind me, keep hoping for incremental improvement and see where that gets us...

bbarnett 6y ago

If you've read my other posts, and several others around here, then I think you'll see a consistent theme. That is, for anarchism to work, you need people to simply "all get along". You do. You really, honestly do. All of the methods which anarchists list to deal with rapists, murderers, or even just a guy that stands up and says "OK, the 10 of us have decided we're going to form a democratic government, and you're all part of it", don't seem to hold water. For example, that last one. You live in a community with 100 people, under anarchism. Those 10 stand up. They state that they run the place. They have guns. Now what? And what if that number is 40 out of 60? I've heard "shunning", "banishment", and I've heard "hired guns". I've also heard of "local police power", yet that involves government, in that, you need to pay and organize and on and on and on. And all your concerns leak therein. I think you need to be honest with yourself. The "old ways" you speak of, are pretty much accepted by people 10 to 100. If you think that "most people under (what?) 30? 40? 25? believe in anarchism, you are sadly mistaken. And there is a reason for that. I've listed them, others have, but all you care to espouse is that "I don't like the current governmental system" and "we'll just handle it without organized government".

bantunes 6y ago
Your failure to see past your preconceived notions in this is a bit baffling. > That is, for anarchism to work, you need people to simply "all get along". For current society to work, we all also have to get along, right? I walk down the street nobody robs or kills me, my boss pays me at the end of the month, the power company supplies me with a service as long as I pay for it... aren't we all "getting along"? Of course, there are fringe players, but they are fringe. Anarchism doesn't magically assume everyone everywhere is a well-intentioned player for it to work, no more than capitalism. > You live in a community with 100 people, under anarchism. Those 10 stand up. They state that they run the place. They have guns. Now what? How would this be different under capitalism, if 10% of a community rose up with guns? Answer is the same as with anarchism: people would fight back. I don't understand how this is hard to comprehend. It's called Anarchism, not Pacifism. Do you really think anarchists just roll with the punches with everything bad thrown at them? How can you even think that's possible to propose as a system? Anarchists don't believe, however, in a lap-dog class of the system as the Police exist today. Individuals can be chosen to serve or volunteer as community defense agents, since as I've mentioned _illegitimate_ authority is what Anarchism rails against. > yet that involves government, in that, you need to pay and organize and on and on and on. Anarchism is not 100% opposed to systems of governance - it only mandates they are fairer than the current ones. Community councils, if agreed upon by said community, are valid. Just not imposed on them. > The "old ways" you speak of, are pretty much accepted by people 10 to 100 So was Feudalism - your point? > If you think that "most people under (what?) 30? 40? 25? believe in anarchism, you are sadly mistaken. Have I said that? I said as conservatives give away to newer generations, those will be more amenable to different systems of government (precisely because the current one isn't working for them). > I've listed them, others have, but all you care to espouse is that "I don't like the current governmental system" and "we'll just handle it without organized government". I don't think you can vote the Anarchists in and from Sunday to Monday we go from late-state capitalism to anarchism. It's a process, all deep change is - we're seeing the end of a neoliberalization process that started in the 70s. But to think we're living in the best system we can because "it's accepted by people" is really poor, and a capitulation to a system that is visibly cracking. But don't mind me, keep hoping for incremental improvement and see where that gets us...