No, I am discussing anarchism the concept as it has evolved over time and has actually existed in real life, even if only for short periods. You’ve invented a brand new ideology that rejects itself as such and undermines its own premise.
And my point is that your idea of anarchy that’s ‘evolved over time’ and has ‘actually existed in real life’ is antithetical to what anarchy actually is. You’ve confused yourself by over intellectualizing the concept.
I don’t want anarchy, I’m a communist. That doesn’t mean I can afford to invent strawmen to argue against, I take anarchism seriously precisely because I don’t agree with it. I evaluate it on its own merits and theory, not by my own invented strawman.
Hi cowbee! Hope you’re doing well. Got an anti-anarchism spiel for me? I’m not gonna debate it really, I’m just curious on your thoughts. I see an optimal society as one with as little hierarchy as possible and anarchism as the most pure philosophy on achieving that.
I’m doing pretty well, thanks! Essentially, I disagree that anarchism is a viable path forward for large-scale change, and my reasoning for doing so is that production and distribution have evolved to become more interconnected, complex, and distributed, not horizontalist, individualist, and communalist. It therefore makes more sense to solve the contradiction between privatized profits in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and the socialization of labor globally, by socializing the profits as well and abolishing class.
Hierarchy isn’t intrinsically bad, in my view. Organization with various levels emerges as a common structure in society over time often out of necessity, as production and distribution grows in scale and complexity. The solution to problems of class society isn’t to attack the concept of hierarchy, but the material basis of class, that being private ownership of the means of production.
I see the take! I may just be a bit too idealist to agree fully, but obviously that world would be way better than our current one. Thanks for sharing.
Nope, you’re trying to impose your dogmatic, nonsense views on a real, existing movement. A movement that I believe has real flaws based on its real positions, and doesn’t need someone inventing a new strawman.
No, I am discussing anarchism the concept as it has evolved over time and has actually existed in real life, even if only for short periods. You’ve invented a brand new ideology that rejects itself as such and undermines its own premise.
And my point is that your idea of anarchy that’s ‘evolved over time’ and has ‘actually existed in real life’ is antithetical to what anarchy actually is. You’ve confused yourself by over intellectualizing the concept.
No, you’ve confused yourself by dogmatically extrapolating what you think anarchy is from vibes and conjecture.
Yes. And if you have a problem with that, you don’t get anarchy.
I don’t want anarchy, I’m a communist. That doesn’t mean I can afford to invent strawmen to argue against, I take anarchism seriously precisely because I don’t agree with it. I evaluate it on its own merits and theory, not by my own invented strawman.
Hi cowbee! Hope you’re doing well. Got an anti-anarchism spiel for me? I’m not gonna debate it really, I’m just curious on your thoughts. I see an optimal society as one with as little hierarchy as possible and anarchism as the most pure philosophy on achieving that.
I’m doing pretty well, thanks! Essentially, I disagree that anarchism is a viable path forward for large-scale change, and my reasoning for doing so is that production and distribution have evolved to become more interconnected, complex, and distributed, not horizontalist, individualist, and communalist. It therefore makes more sense to solve the contradiction between privatized profits in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and the socialization of labor globally, by socializing the profits as well and abolishing class.
Hierarchy isn’t intrinsically bad, in my view. Organization with various levels emerges as a common structure in society over time often out of necessity, as production and distribution grows in scale and complexity. The solution to problems of class society isn’t to attack the concept of hierarchy, but the material basis of class, that being private ownership of the means of production.
That’s the gist of it, really, in a small bite.
I see the take! I may just be a bit too idealist to agree fully, but obviously that world would be way better than our current one. Thanks for sharing.
No problem!
Saying anarchy as a concept is about the freedom to define anarchy how I want isn’t a strawman. It’s just being true to anarchy.
No, it’s nonsense and dishonest.
Well when I see people gatekeeping the idea of anarchy I can’t help but call them out for it. Sorry.
Nope, you’re trying to impose your dogmatic, nonsense views on a real, existing movement. A movement that I believe has real flaws based on its real positions, and doesn’t need someone inventing a new strawman.