• The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    You’re only saying that because every time an anarchist group gains a foothold, it is forced to exist at the pleasure of more powerful states who view it in terms of profit.

    • yeather@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      If the crux of your argument is “Everytime anarchism happens it is too weak to protext itself from foreign influence.” Then you have a weak governmental system.

      • sibachian@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        that goes for every single governmental system (including the current existing system if another system, say anarchy, suddenly becomes dominant). you’re pretty much going to be forced into a crippled state due to how resources are allocated on a global scale. the only way to be a semi-functional radical state is by providing a political chess piece to external opposing powers.

        • Something_Complex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          So anarchy doesn’t actually work ok point made. It’s like saying but if we had machines that made food from air.

          But we don’t

          • Communist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Anarchy works, capitalists just try to destroy it as fast as they can, it just needs to happen in the US first, since it owns half the worlds military, or china. Small scale experiments like the zapatistas prove the legitimacy of the core ideas.

            If the US became anarchist, there would be no such issues.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              Zapatistas don’t claim they are anarchist, and they do still have to defend themselves. And apparently currently they are in crisis so serious they need to dissolve most oftheir organs to (hopefully) completely reorganise.

              https://radiozapatista.org/?p=46648&lang=en

              And this is not even the case where government did a full assault on them, it’s just increasing pressure.

              • Communist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                I’m aware they claim not to be anarchist, but they resemble it quite a bit, they are horizontally organized.

                • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Agree, they do, but might not be any longer. Seems like they are on the junction of getting more organised to resist the bandits and agents.

            • Something_Complex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              Real life anarchy is happening right now, it happened before, it never did work. Explain how it would be different exactly?

              https://youtu.be/UkkJuqTbLIU?si=p2eZEv4gr84IUoKf

              The link is regarding the informal economy of Somalia a country without a government.

              When I say formal economy I mean how things work in anarchy. Or are you just planning to take the did from others that are weaker then you if there isn’t enough for all?

              • Communist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Anarchy has nothing to do with “not having government” you fundamentally misunderstand anarchism if you think that’s what it means. Somalia in no way resembles what any anarchist philosophers said. If you think it does, I must know, which philosophers are you citing?

                If you want a real-world example check the zapatistas, or the native americans pre-colonialism.

                If you say “why didn’t they win against white people if their ideology was so good” and the answer to that is rather obvious, exploiting people is very efficient.

                As for what would be different, it is very difficult for a nation to fight the world, it’d be easy if that nation was the US.

    • Something_Complex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      do you know where your food comes from, are you aware the world resources are not infinite.

      Or do I need to explain why everyone can’t own their own house on the beach because there’s is only so much costline(not to mention the environmental coats)

      Explain how early human society didn’t start with anarchy exactly?..how exactly do you expect an anarchist group to survive if you and the other guys from other group both need food but there is barely enough to feed one group.

      Do that and replace food by whatever you want