4 ms·

INB4 ten hours of bakunin posts and links leading to failed projects with hour long reviews of why external factors are to blame. Re-Education will patch all t

INB4 ten hours of bakunin posts and links leading to failed projects with hour long reviews of why external factors are to blame. Re-Education will patch all the brain-bugs. And if it does not, we fall back to individualism and shoot them as counter-revolutionarys. The education that the education does nothing, seems to stick. I refuse to have my lifetime wasted by political philosophy without one single longterm surviving project. And yes, lets take Mogadischu. A prime example that when the state breaks down, people fall back to family ties, aka clans, aka feudalism with grandpa as the default model. Edit: As a individual mindset, anarchism is incredible liberating and i can recommend it as a thought approach, that takes nearly nothing as "given". But for a "given" like oneself and ones fellow men, it does not work out to design proper stress surviving societal structures.

pksebben 5y ago
In the scope of things, capitalist republics hardly qualify for long term survival either, having practically just showed up. It sure doesn't look like it's headed for stability, either.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Capitalist democracies at least can survive on the scale of centuries, anarchies can barely manage years or even months.
  - OneTimePetes 5y ago
    In addition, a working market - as in parallel exploring, without monopolistic structures - is as close to a tamed anarchy as is civilizational possible. We prevent a real market though with privatized pension funds- who want stability and silence in the crypts. When you transfer traditional state obligations to a private market, the market takes on the nature of the state, it becomes self-stabilizing, monopolistic and innovation dead.
  - JasonCannon 5y ago
    Capitalist democracies (no such thing they are all republics) still maintain the power structures that have always existed. The ruling class simply stops calling themselves the aristocracy and start calling themselves representatives and senators and capitalists and land lord's. There isn't as strong of an ideological push for people to destroy them. Anarchist societies are about completely destroying that hierarchy and there is a strong reason for all non anarchists to want to destroy them and see them fail.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      I'm all for replacing our current democracies with better systems and to fight corruption. However I'm not for eliminating our current system without anything to replace it, that is a recipe for disaster. If people are willing to vote for a corrupt politician in a democracy, then they would also be willing to fight for a corrupt warlord in an anarchy, and if I have to choose between dealing with corrupt politicians or hostile warlords I'll pick the corrupt politicians any day.
      - JasonCannon 5y ago
        Anarchism is not just taking down the current system and saying "No system!" It is itself a system and an ideology around how people rule themselves. We don't seek to destroy, we seek to organize new systems and build that up. The point of the black bloc and other agitators is not to seriously overthrow the government, we know that isn't going to happen. Not any time soon. It's agitprop both to shake up the libs and make them realize that things are not ok, and also a call to like minded individuals that people are fighting back and organizing and to come join us. The actual revolution won't be kicked off by a bunch of angry youth. It will be kicked off with a sufficient amount of people have become class conscious enough that the people will rise up. Most likely that will occur after decades of organization, and more than likely after the collapse of our current society anyways. Which based on how capitalism is destroying itself and the working class, is definitely on it's way (not saying any time soon, just that it will happen, just like how feudalism destroyed itself).
JasonCannon 5y ago
The state collapsing does not mean Anarchism is here. Anarchism is more than just no governments. That's what you are either failing to understand or purposely ignoring. Anarchism is itself a style of organization and ideology. Mogadishu did not have any serious Anarchist organization or Anarchist revolution. It was the result of civil war and a collapsing government. And yes, when chaos reigns warlords take over. But that is not Anarchism.

pksebben 5y ago

In the scope of things, capitalist republics hardly qualify for long term survival either, having practically just showed up. It sure doesn't look like it's headed for stability, either.

Jensson 5y ago
Capitalist democracies at least can survive on the scale of centuries, anarchies can barely manage years or even months.
- OneTimePetes 5y ago
  In addition, a working market - as in parallel exploring, without monopolistic structures - is as close to a tamed anarchy as is civilizational possible. We prevent a real market though with privatized pension funds- who want stability and silence in the crypts. When you transfer traditional state obligations to a private market, the market takes on the nature of the state, it becomes self-stabilizing, monopolistic and innovation dead.
- JasonCannon 5y ago
  Capitalist democracies (no such thing they are all republics) still maintain the power structures that have always existed. The ruling class simply stops calling themselves the aristocracy and start calling themselves representatives and senators and capitalists and land lord's. There isn't as strong of an ideological push for people to destroy them. Anarchist societies are about completely destroying that hierarchy and there is a strong reason for all non anarchists to want to destroy them and see them fail.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    I'm all for replacing our current democracies with better systems and to fight corruption. However I'm not for eliminating our current system without anything to replace it, that is a recipe for disaster. If people are willing to vote for a corrupt politician in a democracy, then they would also be willing to fight for a corrupt warlord in an anarchy, and if I have to choose between dealing with corrupt politicians or hostile warlords I'll pick the corrupt politicians any day.
    - JasonCannon 5y ago
      Anarchism is not just taking down the current system and saying "No system!" It is itself a system and an ideology around how people rule themselves. We don't seek to destroy, we seek to organize new systems and build that up. The point of the black bloc and other agitators is not to seriously overthrow the government, we know that isn't going to happen. Not any time soon. It's agitprop both to shake up the libs and make them realize that things are not ok, and also a call to like minded individuals that people are fighting back and organizing and to come join us. The actual revolution won't be kicked off by a bunch of angry youth. It will be kicked off with a sufficient amount of people have become class conscious enough that the people will rise up. Most likely that will occur after decades of organization, and more than likely after the collapse of our current society anyways. Which based on how capitalism is destroying itself and the working class, is definitely on it's way (not saying any time soon, just that it will happen, just like how feudalism destroyed itself).

JasonCannon 5y ago

The state collapsing does not mean Anarchism is here. Anarchism is more than just no governments. That's what you are either failing to understand or purposely ignoring. Anarchism is itself a style of organization and ideology. Mogadishu did not have any serious Anarchist organization or Anarchist revolution. It was the result of civil war and a collapsing government. And yes, when chaos reigns warlords take over. But that is not Anarchism.