Comment by JasonCannon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JasonCannon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Anarchism without considering the legacy humanity instincts inherited is not realistic and not worth considering.

Man, if only in the last 200 years of philosophical work done on Anarchism one of the anarchist philosophers would have stopped and considered human nature and history. Thanks random HN poster for completely dismantling the entire field by bringing up this one point that no one has ever thought of before!

>Anarchy has no buying and selling. The strong just take. Without a non-violence consent aka state, there are no rules and no syncdicalism survives that.

Man, if only there were like ways that Anarchists could organize and fight that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Lib...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_de...

What makes you think everyone would just sit by and let people just steal from them? It's almost like you aren't considering the legacy humanity instincts and history of the planet if you think that's how people would react.

edit: Also, warlords are absolutely rulers, so no. Not like mogadishu in the 90's.

> Man, if only there were like ways that Anarchists could organize and fight that.

If an anarchist state can organize and fight, why wouldn't they organize and enslave/steal from neighbors? Then that escalates and creates a country where the ruling anarchists steals and enslaves from the rest. The other anarchies doesn't put up a fight since fighting costs more than just giving the ruler anarchists what they want, and here the ruler anarchist state also protects the peaceful anarchists from other ruler anarchists. Can you explain how anarchies would stop this sort of hierarchy of anarchies from happening?

Anarchist State.

Ruler Anarchist.

I don't think you quite grasp what Anarchism is.

Anarchism isn't simply the removal of rules and calling it a day. It's about decolonizing our minds and ideologies. It's about restructuring our societies so that would be rulers can't gain power in the first place. It's about cooperation over competition.

I used those words to make a point. If an area would become anarchist as you say, I'd call it an anarchist state. And then that area has a military presence, areas with military presence uses that to influence surrounding areas, creating ruler anarchist areas, or ruler anarchist states. That will happen, it has happened at every time anything like this has been tried ever in history, there is no changing that. I will not submit to a warlord just because you want to run your thought experiment yet again.

Every 30 years, humanity looses the knowledge on previously failed experiments and dusty tomes of failed political philosophy get another chance to bloom. His "rediscovery" of what did not work for hundreds of years is part of the bug.

The inability of the democratic system to reform and thus in-cooperate constructive elements of the youth- that is the real battlefront. Extremism is a symptom of a decay of ability in the middle.

Or perhaps Liberalism is inherently oppressive and no amount of reform or change will change that fact.

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.

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.

Capitalist democracies at least can survive on the scale of centuries, anarchies can barely manage years or even months.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com