The government infiltrators are also the ones who are the most reliable organisational workers.
What does somebody who presumes to declare what “we” in “the party” love possibly have to do with anarchism?
I mean, trying to speak for a group isn’t a crime against that group. It’s an invitation to disagree. You’re free to do so. I doubt they would mind.
Just one of the most important figures of the Paris commune and, as a side note, the first to wave the black flag.
You seem to misunderstand what anarchism means however
And she fought big time for poor kids schooling.
deleted by creator
No - the problem is that I do understand what it means, as opposed to nearly everyone who wears the label, especially online.
Here’s a hint - if you think collectively, you’ve already failed.
Here’s another hint - if you look to an authority to tell you what to believe, you’ve already failed.
Just so you’re aware, you aren’t the first or smartest person to think of issues with Anarchism. There are far smarter and well read Anarchists, than anyone here, who think it’s still the right idea. No one will agree on every specific, but that’s true for everything.
I could argue every system of governance is doomed to fail. Literally none of them are perfect, and none ever will be. That’s why there are so many different versions of capitalist democratic republics. Every single time there are issues, and people come up with different solutions to those issues. The real problem comes when you refuse to engage and see any pros or cons of a system. There’s always something to learn.
You’re more ignorant than any Anarchist if you write it off entirely, just because you have a poor idea of what it means. Hint: big A Anarchism is different than little a anarchism. It doesn’t mean a lack of government. It’s an attempt to remove hierarchy, where possible, because hierarchies are where most of the issues with society come from.
Seriously WTF?
It doesn’t mean a lack of government. It’s an attempt to remove hierarchy, where possible,
That’s one of the most ludicrous sentences I’ve ever read.
To govern is necessarily and explicitly hierarchical, since the entire idea is that the choices an individual might make are in some way constrained. And the only possible way that they can be constrained is if it’s first stipulated that some entity has a greater say over what they may, may not, must or must not be than the person themself has.
But hey - the broad history of attempts to encourage thinking that will lead to universal freedom from the nominally rightful imposition of the wills of some upon others is in large part a history of abandoning labels as they’re each in turn captured by those who won’t stand for or can’t even envision a world in which they can’t see their preferences imposed on those who don’t share them.
You can have horizontal hierarchy, where no one has a position above others. People need to agree to certain rules. There are structures that allow for this, such as direct democracy. There will always be a need for some structure, so people know what is and isn’t allowed. Anarchism is not anarchy, as media portrays it. It’s not total chaos. It’s organization that removes vertical hierarchies.
IMO, this is the only part you got right.
Otherwise, you appear to be trapped in the inherently self-defeating idea that people can’t be trusted to make their own decisions so people should be empowered to constrain them, resting solely on a foundation of rhetoric and apologetics.
Here’s a hint - if you think collectively, you’ve already failed.
Anarcho-collectivists: *continues existing*
Here’s another hint - all ideological subdivisions of anarchism are masturbatory fantasies at best, because there will always be people who will refuse to accede to them and there will never be mechanisms to force their compliance.
As long as you’re not creating a new state, systems of domination, hierarchies, etc., then go do what you want. Anarcho-collectivism (or -communism, or -syndicalism, or mutualism) doesn’t mean imposing those frameworks of anarchist organization on the proletariat and the ecology; it just means we have a viewpoint on which mode(s) of organization have the best chance of achieving liberation.
Right - it’s a masturbatory fantasy.
There are really only two broad options - whatever people make up an anarchistic society will make whatever choices they make for whatever reasosns they make them, and enough of them will be conscious enough of the need to compromise to do so, and they’ll end up with a more or less stable society that might be hastily generalized in some broad and necessarily inaccurate ways, or anarchism will fail.
One of the many ways by which anarchism could fail is by ideologues digging their heels in and refusing to compromise on any of the dogma stipulated by the label to which they’ve sworn allegiance.
There are really only two broad options - whatever people make up an anarchistic society will make whatever choices they make for whatever reasosns they make them, and enough of them will be conscious enough of the need to compromise to do so, and they’ll end up with a more or less stable society that might be hastily generalized in some broad and necessarily inaccurate ways
This… sounds like anarchism succeeding. IMO, being an anarcho-communist (or whatever) is trying to persuade people to use anarchist communism (or whatever) as the framework to make better choices “for whatever reasons they make them”, because we think that this is a good framework for reasoning about an uncertain world. But if you want to think differently about anarchism, that’s completely fine, welcome even. Diversity is strength. But that doesn’t mean I’m gonna stop passionately advocating for what I think is right.
One of the many ways by which anarchism could fail is by ideologues digging their heels in and refusing to compromise on any of the dogma stipulated by the label to which they’ve sworn allegiance.
All forms of anarchism organize on the basis of free association. Again, dissatisfied parties can freely disassociate and go do their own thing. Or, they can reach a compromise. Either outcome is not a failure of anarchism.
Ahhh, Stirner fan, I see
As a stirner fan myself, I believe collectivism is in my own self interest 😤
Thank you so much for saying this one key phrase
found the libertarian
Labels are for people who can’t grasp ideas.
Labels are how you group ideas into contextual boxes so you can communicate with other humans with your idiot mouth-hole.
Lol. From the person saying anarchism (little a, as you’re using it, though we’re discussing big A) is bad.
WAIT there’s a difference? Fuck I’ve been using either for so long.
Yep! Big A is the political ideology. Little a is describing a situation of lawlessness.
I thought that was what the -ism was for! What have I inadvertently been saying all this time with “anarchism”?
Yeah, anarchism I guess could be fine, but the political thought should be a capital A. Little a I would associate more with people who just want lawlessness/anti-governance. Big A Anarchism essentially requires laws and a government, in some form. Depending on the context, it’s probably fine though.
WTF?
“Accomplice” calisthenics.
Royal “we.”
