Explain the mechanism through which the state will wither away. Then when the state has withered away explain how it will take more than 5 minutes before it reforms again.
I’m not even trolling here, no anarchist has ever been able to explain this to me in a way that isn’t different from literal faith.
You need to describe the organization of such a society: how do things get done. Who decides what gets done and how is it decided. How do you stop those humans who are smarter, and more charismatic from rallying a following and imposing their will? The natural state of humanity is hierarchical, now that doesn’t mean that because it’s natural it needs to stay that way but I am simply making the descriptive claim that without guardrails hierarchy will form.
I have thought about this a little though I admit to be ignorant about anarchic literature, Im basing myself mostly on the basic and most well known claims. But from what I know of the goals of the ideology, for me anarchism is only possible through the trans human project. Humans would transcend the genetical and physical differences that make us intrinsically different and therefore more capable than others. We would be truly equal, though not human in any sense of the word anymore. More like a program that can reach consensus without dissenting opinions causing rifts because we are in fact a one who also happens to be many if that makes sense? Like the Geth in Mass Effect. A hive mind.
I believe some anarchists believe that cooperatives are a good first step. This is maybe more stateless socialism, but an anarchists would prefer elected managers/leaders in such organizations be trained that their position doesn’t give them any real authority over others but rather just additional responsibilities. A small example could be the wording of these positions might be different; instead of managers, they might be called coordinators.
Cooperatives are, at least now, still currently subject to market forces, and people would would together to get things done. The sole difference being workers would have more freedom over their lives since they’d be the owners of the means of productions.
What happens when there is no consensus on an important decision and people split in half and one half tries to impose their will on the other? How is this mediated? And if they do not have authority what happens when someone doesn’t want to do what needs to be done? Who has the authority to punish coerce them?
And I have so many questions about security both domestic and foreign that I don’t even know where to start.
You need to describe the organization of such a society: how do things get done.
Why? How should I be able to? No one in feudal times could have predicted how things would be done in capitalism. Why should I be able to accurately predict how a free society would look like?
Who decides what gets done and how is it decided.
In my (limited) model? Federated councils. So the people have a say in decisions proportional to how much they are affected by them.
How do you stop those humans who are smarter, and more charismatic from rallying a following and imposing their will?
How will these “smart people” be able to achieve such a following? Immediate hunter-gatherers have strategies against this kind of accumulation of power. For example by ridiculing people who are too full of themselves. Can’t find the youtube video that explains this concept, right now. It was one in this series, though.
Also: you do realize that liberal democracy has this exact problem of demagogues?
The natural state of humanity is hierarchical
Now where did you get that idea? Any sources for that? Also: naturalistic fallacy.
I am simply making the descriptive claim that without guardrails hierarchy will form.
Maybe. Anarchists are quite in favour of these guardrails, though.
I think you overemphasize competition in mankind. One foundational text of anarchism is “mutual aid” by Peter Kropotkin, which adds on to Darwin’s theory by stating (and observing) that cooperation within one species is a vital factor in evolution.
I’m already skeptical because of the author but I’m willing to give it a read. I do know that Lenin by the end of his life really did not like the state he had built so the ideas must be different than the practice.
oh legit “in practice” is always different than on paper. speaking as a software engineer and firefighter - shit always goes sideways. humans gonna human.
but as a polemic I found it to be a solid read.
now, I have never been good at determining “depth” of reads - english class always confused me “what do you mean theme? it’s a farm with talking animals on it.” so … caveat emptor.
Explain the mechanism through which the state will wither away. Then when the state has withered away explain how it will take more than 5 minutes before it reforms again.
I’m not even trolling here, no anarchist has ever been able to explain this to me in a way that isn’t different from literal faith.
The state is the mechanism that stabilizes class antagonism.
Why would it reform “5 minutes” after it is not needed anymore, because class antagonisms ceized to exist?
You need to describe the organization of such a society: how do things get done. Who decides what gets done and how is it decided. How do you stop those humans who are smarter, and more charismatic from rallying a following and imposing their will? The natural state of humanity is hierarchical, now that doesn’t mean that because it’s natural it needs to stay that way but I am simply making the descriptive claim that without guardrails hierarchy will form.
I have thought about this a little though I admit to be ignorant about anarchic literature, Im basing myself mostly on the basic and most well known claims. But from what I know of the goals of the ideology, for me anarchism is only possible through the trans human project. Humans would transcend the genetical and physical differences that make us intrinsically different and therefore more capable than others. We would be truly equal, though not human in any sense of the word anymore. More like a program that can reach consensus without dissenting opinions causing rifts because we are in fact a one who also happens to be many if that makes sense? Like the Geth in Mass Effect. A hive mind.
I believe some anarchists believe that cooperatives are a good first step. This is maybe more stateless socialism, but an anarchists would prefer elected managers/leaders in such organizations be trained that their position doesn’t give them any real authority over others but rather just additional responsibilities. A small example could be the wording of these positions might be different; instead of managers, they might be called coordinators.
Cooperatives are, at least now, still currently subject to market forces, and people would would together to get things done. The sole difference being workers would have more freedom over their lives since they’d be the owners of the means of productions.
What happens when there is no consensus on an important decision and people split in half and one half tries to impose their will on the other? How is this mediated? And if they do not have authority what happens when someone doesn’t want to do what needs to be done? Who has the authority to punish coerce them?
And I have so many questions about security both domestic and foreign that I don’t even know where to start.
Why? How should I be able to? No one in feudal times could have predicted how things would be done in capitalism. Why should I be able to accurately predict how a free society would look like?
In my (limited) model? Federated councils. So the people have a say in decisions proportional to how much they are affected by them.
How will these “smart people” be able to achieve such a following? Immediate hunter-gatherers have strategies against this kind of accumulation of power. For example by ridiculing people who are too full of themselves. Can’t find the youtube video that explains this concept, right now. It was one in this series, though.
Also: you do realize that liberal democracy has this exact problem of demagogues?
Now where did you get that idea? Any sources for that? Also: naturalistic fallacy.
Maybe. Anarchists are quite in favour of these guardrails, though.
I think you overemphasize competition in mankind. One foundational text of anarchism is “mutual aid” by Peter Kropotkin, which adds on to Darwin’s theory by stating (and observing) that cooperation within one species is a vital factor in evolution.
Edit: Found the video I meant
i can’t explain it from an anarchist perspective but I can let you know a source for some great commentary on that exact matter if you’re interested?
I am. Shoot.
https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf
it’s well written and in a plain english form. a short read, honestly.
I’m already skeptical because of the author but I’m willing to give it a read. I do know that Lenin by the end of his life really did not like the state he had built so the ideas must be different than the practice.
oh legit “in practice” is always different than on paper. speaking as a software engineer and firefighter - shit always goes sideways. humans gonna human.
but as a polemic I found it to be a solid read.
now, I have never been good at determining “depth” of reads - english class always confused me “what do you mean theme? it’s a farm with talking animals on it.” so … caveat emptor.