Yeah, I mean, yeah, but... the problem with anarchism isn't that it's stupid, it's that people are stupid. Most anarchists are smart and see the world through their perspective, which is, people are empathetic, rational, and interested in nuance and complexity. Unfortunately, a large number of the populace is not that smart, nor that interested. Anarchist societies don't exist or if they do, they don't last, because the premise is wisdom, which so many people lack, that they would rather have a king, than deal with the complexities of being one's own master.
Memes of Production
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
People are not “stupid”, they are ignorant.
People have a learnt behaviour, they only know the system they live in. And that is one where civic duties are outsourced to nebulous entities while they wring their hands of responsibility.
Historically this has not always been the case and there are active societies today who are considered examples of anarchism.
The issue is not that people are unintelligent, it’s that their whole life has been telling them the only way to survive is what you currently know.
Ignorance can be overcome with education and practicing different ways of existence.
I dunno, I've met some pretty fucking stupid people. Idiocy and ignorance go hand in hand.
I'm firmly on team "humans en masse are too stupid and selfish for anarchism to work on any scale beyond the neighborhood.
People are pretty fucking stupid. Have never been to walmart or wendy's?
Some people chose ignorance because of laziness.
But the real problem IMO are the entitled soulless egomaniacs without empathy that trashes any society because they are so fundamentally broken and hateful. Remove them and we can all live harmouniously together, or so I think.
The real problem is capitalism and how it promotes those traits.
Which societies active today are considered examples of anarchism? As far as I'm aware there was only one in post-aasad Syria and they got decimated by other regional factions.
Anarchism poses the ultimate threat to the ruling class, and so they are obviously incentivized to destroy it. That doesn't mean it isn't worth trying!
The Zapatistas are a modern anarchist society existing today, but you are right that many historical examples such as the Spanish Commune have been ruthlessly repressed, by fascists and communists alike.
Explain how you deal with or prevent rape and murder in an anarchist society.
We don't prevent or deal with rape in our current society, you do realize? It's one of the most ignored crimes.
I'll link and quote the relevant part of an anarchist FAQ for you:
When people object to anarchy, they often ask about those who would steal, murder, rape and so forth and seem to assume that such people would be free to act as they like. This is, needless to say, an utter misunderstanding of both our ideas and freedom in general. Simply put, if people impose themselves by force on others then "they will be the government" and "we will oppose them with force" for "if today we want to make a revolution against the government, it is not in order to submit ourselves supinely to new oppressors."
It should be remembered that just because the state monopolises or organises a (public) service, it does not mean that the abolition of the state means the abolition of what useful things it provided. For example, many states own and run the train network but the abolition of the state does not mean that there will no longer be any trains! In a free society management of the railways would be done by the rail workers themselves, in association with the community. The same applies to anti-social behaviour and so we find Kropotkin, for example, pointing to how "voluntary associations" would "substitute themselves for the State in all its functions," including "mutual protection" and "defence of the territory."
So, in simple terms, we would prevent murder and rape. We, the people. It's definitely worth reading the FAQ more as it also covers why rapes and murders occur, and why anarchism would dramatically reduce the incedence rate of those crimes.
Every post of yours in this community has been some edgy bad faith take. Why would I bother wasting time answering this question for you?
Google it yourself, it's been asked a million times before and you personally are not worth my time any further now that I've seen what you are.
Vast majority of crimes can be prevented by just providing people with basic resources, education and emotional support.
Lots of anarchist societies don't last not because of lack of wisdom, but because of deliberate backstabbing by authorities that initially seem to support them. For example, Ukrainian anarchists during 1910s had a pretty successful time until Bolsheviks decided they weren't needed any more.
But I like doctors telling me how not to die.
Okay, so choose to listen to them.
At the same time, be aware that you do not have to listen to them, especially when they bias, gaslight, or misdiagnose you because you're a woman or PoC.
Health care professionals are amazing, but they are not a source of authority.
Dr. Oz says you should stick bleach in yout bum.
Dr. Phil agrees.
Anarchists are simply people who believe [that] human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.
There is no historical evidence to support this conclusion.
Yeah, it's nice in theory, but a bit idealistic. The majority of people are always going to prioritise self interest over all else
Pretty much every political system works great if everyone is capable of acting in a reasonable fashion.
Monarchy works great if the king is reasonable and surrounds himself with reasonable advisors that help make the kingdom a better place.
Republics work great when the senators are reasonable and act in the benefit of the citizens.
Pure democracy works great when the people are reasonable and work to make life better for everyone.
The problem is that everyone isn't reasonable. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals". The egalitarian success of a political system is directly proportional to how well it manages the large number of unreasonable people within it. If your system is authoritarian, unreasonable people will gravitate to official positions of power. If your system is toothless, unreasonable people will develop their own positions of power through physical force or social influence. You can hypothesize emergent self-regulation all day, but if your system doesn't account for exceptionally unreasonable people, it will become their plaything.
Humanity started as anarchic. Every system of oppression developed from that naturally anarchic system.
That is the fundamental precept of anarchism, that people will prioritize self-interest, and thus we need to make a society which accounts for that fact, rather than trusting rulers not to abuse power for their own gain.
I strongly recommend checking out an anarchist FAQ to learn more, because anarchism is the only ideology which can permenently liberate the working class.
Yeah, it's nice in theory, but a bit idealistic.
It is Disney-movie levels of romantic idealism.
Every human that grew up in this world and still has even an ounce of compassion and solidarity in them is the living evidence of that conclusion.
Also, do you think you yourself have to be forved to behauve reasonable?
The Right keeps winning because the Right focuses on what actually gives them power.
A televangelist named Jerry Falwell created the 'Moral Majority' back in the 1970s. They had a simple plan. If the local GOP club had had twenty people at their last meeting, the MMs would show up with fifty. They started small, getting county clerks, sheriffs, and dog catchers elected. Soon, they were getting Congress members elected.
Mamdani and AOC figured out how to work inside the DNC power structure.
imho, stop debating which Utopia is best and work on actual progress in the real world. And by 'actual progress' I mean winning elections.
Fuck no. Elections will never bring the change needed because the system cannot be dismantled from inside it. Stop wasting your time on them and focus on what will actually destroy capitalism - revolution.
I'll bet conservatives love it when you say this. "Throw away one of our tools, it's dirty"
Why not vote before the revolution to make changes while you can and work towards the revolution as well?
They do.
Unfortunately, I don't believe many humans can act in a reasonable fashion without being forced to.
Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.
I don't believe this. I don't believe the rapists and murderers will stop being rapists and murderers if we get rid of laws and law enforcement.
Love this. Anarchism is the only truly optimistic and empathetic political philosophy.
Unfortunately this philosophy all falls apart in the real world when people stop paying taxes, then government that can defend you from people using force against you no longer exists
Anarchism is not pacifism.
Never said anything about that
Do you not understand what you, yourself, wrote?