What’s the difference between this and libertarianism?
Anarchism is older and we have actual working examples
Hierarchists oftentimes say that we need the machine to ensure that we are provided for. In this sense I like to think of the machine as a mother. The motherly machine nurtures us. Gives us hospitals, passports, car infrastructure, gives us internet, gives us supermarkets.
But she can’t nurture us without vessels which pumps force of life to her. The one raising and maintaining the vessels is the fatherly machine.
Our father is efficient, and does whatever he needs to do to accomplish this. He deathen forests to set up farms. He penetrates the ground for metals, he exploits labour to the degree that it is possible, fully if possible. He grabs around that which he can, from the very biggest, to the very smallest. He sucks up life from the ocean. And penetrates the crust of Gaja to vessel oil.
The issue here is that in fern for the machine to preserve itself, it needs people to look away from the fatherly machine, because then it can get away with more providing. This is easy for the machine, because all the machine has to do is to claim responsibility for being non-exploitative. It is moving responsibility away from people towards itself.
The lokening is therefore to take back responsibility.
This sounds like anarcho-primitivism.
I like to use the term democratic confederalist or demconf in short, but I agree with anarcho-primitivism/indigenism in the sense that we should live with nature, not against it.
I think it sounds nice, but it’s hard for me to take it seriously.
They do it in southern Kurdistan. Not sure if you take them seriously.
How do they manufacture their defensive weapons or communications equipment in harmony with nature? I’m just saying that an-prim isn’t a realistic model for the world.
Vietcong was able to defend against the raid of the Washington beatling even though they had no industry. Southern Kurdistan is maintaining their position even though they don’t produce their weapons. Zapatistas has a stronghold.
Isn’t the most important thing that these bodies actually are able to defend their areas?
They all have support of industrialized areas. None of them are/were an-prim.
We need to overhaul our ecology. Our current ecology is too dependent on extractivism
I like this analogy
thank you :)
Anarchism is the revolutionary idea that no one can be held responsible for your actions but yourself. Not government, not god, not a gun to your head, just you accepting responsibility. Anarchism without personal responsibility is just fascism at the individual scale.
Thanks you. That is the most concise & meaningful full explanation.
👆
that’s a very petit understanding of anarchism
I’m pretty comfortable in the assumption that they don’t give a fuck.
i assume that the person who posted this is young and hence they shouldn’t “give a fuck”.
Godspeed to them… hope they can shake down everything around them :)
With youth comes assumptions. You’ll age out of it soon enough little whipper snapper.
I read it as a useful point of recognition accessible to all, something more like a seed than a container (container being “anarchism is…”).
…yet is entirely incapable of telling you not to impinge on everyone else’s control over their own lives.
The whole point of laws is (or should be) to clearly delineate when your freedom to swing your arm impinges on someone else’s right not to get punched.
Anarchy isn’t about doing whatever you want, hurting anyone along the way. That’s libertarianism.
Anarchism means no rulers, not no rules.
No, it means, no rulers.Anomie means no rulesEdit: at least that’s the German word for a society without rules. Anarchy can perfectly integrate social rules, but without rulers. Made by the people in the society they live in.Edit 2: auto correct fucked my over quite some times hereBud, re-read what I said
Ah, fuck…misread, sorry
No worries
Ok, and who gets to decide those rules?
And don’t start with “everyone decides them”, I mean practically. Who gets to have the idea of a rule, bring it forth to the group, organize the whole shtick of deciding on it, implement it, inform everyone else how the new rule works, enforce it, and everything else that needs to happen for a rule to exist?
Do some reading. There are a lot of solutions. The most obvious, as you brought it up just to dismiss it, is direct democracy. Everyone votes. There are other options too, like a rotating panel of representatives, so no one has lasting g authority and everyone shares in it.
There are people smarter than both of us who think it’s a good idea and have thought of potential solutions. Before you just dismiss things out of hand, you should actually look into what solutions have been thought of before. I promise you your thought isn’t unique, and people have considered how it would work. Maybe you can learn from it, even if you don’t agree with it.
I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.
I’m not sure you know what anarchy means. You might be thinking of direct democracy. Even that has issues with tyranny of the majority and market forces being leveraged to curtail freedom outside of government control. I’m a social libertarian myself, because government intervention is required to curtail abuse of market forces.
Direct democracy is one of the system proposed for Anarchist governance. Direct democracy is just a system. It can be part of many political ideas. Anarchy just means there isn’t hierarchy. Direct democracy facilitates this, correct? There are no rulers, and everyone is equal in voting.
Direct democracy makes the majority into an authority over the minority. You are also going to have to enforce those laws. That means cops and, more importantly, judges. That is unless you plan to try every single criminal in a national referendum. Or you could put them in front of unsupervised juries, in which case you might as well codify it as legalized lynching.
I love people who are so confident that they’re the first people to think of something. You assume you must be correct just because you feel strongly about it. This has all been considered. Here’s the Anarchist wiki, for your perusal. You might learn something there if you’re actually open to learning.
I love it that you assume I should know or care that there is an anarchist wiki. No, I certainly don’t think I was the first to think of anything, and no, you have given me no reason to want to “learn something”. I studied philosophy of government in college and have read the anarchy page on Wikipedia, have you done either?
Give me one reason why I should bother with your (presumably) anarchist fanfic smartass and maybe I’ll bother.
The fact you first think reading a single wiki page is sufficient, and also mention the wrong page, makes this hilarious. Little a anarchy is not the same as big A Anarchism. Anarchism is the political thought. Yes, I’ve read it.
Give me one reason why I should bother with your (presumably) anarchist fanfic smartass and maybe I’ll bother.
Because you have a curious mind and want to be informed. You’d rather know the solutions others have come up with for your hypothetical problems than to think no one has considered it. You’d rather find out you were uninformed and learned something new instead of thinking refusing to learn makes you feel right.
I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.
how do you “democratically” create laws? Will people vote to create those laws and what’s going to happen to people who disagree with those “democratically created laws”?
Their vision of anarchy is just democracy that agrees with them because they don’t want to participate in the democracy they already have.
Direct democracy is not the same as representative democracy. We have a ruling class that we elect. A direct democracy doesn’t. There are other options to solve the issue too.
What democracy? I dont see any democracy here.
even assuming that a group of free people without classes or coercion would choose to make a law, it can’t possibly apply to people who didn’t consent to it.
so it’s no law at all. and such a law dies when one of the last two agreed people die.
it simply makes no sense for a system of consent and consensus to implement laws.
indeed :)
No government can give you freedom🏴🚩
No Masters, No Slaves.
But who will tell me what to do!?
