4 ms·

1. At the time, Orwell was a socialist, not a communist, and perhaps even more importantly, he was fighting against fascism, rather than for communism. You real

• TotalCrackpot 3y ago
  > 3. Anarchism leads to a lawless society in which the strongest will rule. It leads to Dark Ages, as it has done before. It may be moneyless, but it will have very clear class and ownership concepts. Why? Because of one sentence quote from a book published in 1651? Or maybe you have no idea what you are talking about?
  • jncfhnb 3y ago
    If nobody feels like organizing social power structures I’d probably just go ahead and do it myself. What are you gonna do when there’s ten of us and one of you?
    • maxbond 3y ago
      Generally anarchists accept power structures are inevitable and want different power structures, organized on the basis of mutual cooperation and collective decision making rather than a hierarchical system where a small number of people (usually the people furthest from the "facts on the ground") deliberate and decide. More like direct democracy than a power vacuum.
      • TotalCrackpot 3y ago
        Individual anarchist would disagree with quite a lot of of this, which is why I don't define Anarchism, for me it's about fighting against relations of domination and subordination. This school is very broad.
        • maxbond 3y ago
          Certainly. If you have ideas about how to oppose systems of domination and subordination without creating systems to replace them, I'm always interested to hear about it. I'm confused why you don't want to define it. You seem passionate about advocating for it. If you won't define it, how can you respond to a challenge like in the GGP comment? Why should anyone be convinced by your argumentation if you won't tell them what you're arguing for? Keep in mind, you don't have to provide a complete definition, only a definition for what you mean by it and what you are advocating for. You can make it clear that others might disagree.
          • TotalCrackpot 3y ago
            I would say my approach is fairly economical, if GGP doesn't want to justify their opinion on anarchism being the rule of the strongest with private property then I just wasted my time. I wouldn't be surprised if he considered anarchism as only anti-statist ideology, if he wrote that then indeed I would probably write something more about ideas that usually correspond to this ideology. On one hand I try to engage him, on the other indeed I do that confrontationally. I think this has advantages to writing a monologue abut what Anarchism means, or at least what it means to me.
            • maxbond 3y ago
              I guess I just don't understand what your goal are and what you're trying to economize. If you don't want people to think it's merely antistatism, snapping at them will seem, in their minds, to confirm their preconceptions. I certainly am not suggesting you write a monologue, but snapping at them isn't a dialogue either.
        • 3y ago
  • maxbond 3y ago
    You'll have an easier time if you explain what anarchism is instead. Eg, "anarchism doesn't seek to abolish all power structures, it seeks to replace hierarchical power structures with horizontal ones; to narrow their scope of responsibility; and to form systems of accountability to ensure the power structures serve the purpose intended, rather than their own interests. The problem of power structures expanding to consume all of society is a result of the tendency of power structures to serve their own ends and expand their scope of responsibility (analogous to the classic quip about how every application will eventually send email)." Discussions of political theory in a general audience, where you can't assume everyone is on the same page about what terminology means (and the term anarchism most especially), usually go better if you explain what you mean in long form rather than using the jargon term. If you tell someone you're an anarchist and don't elaborate on what you mean, they're gunnuh think of Gavrilo Princip.