I’d say that I’m about half anarchist, and about half libertarian socialist. Give or take.
In my estimation, anarchism–and all other flavors or communism–start to break down past the community level. Humans in general seem to be wired to work communally in tribal groups, but don’t seem to be able to work communally in larger groups without some kind of authoritarian or coercive control. My own experiences with anarchistic groups have been that they work fantastically well at a local level, and then break down immediately once you have to deal with a national organization and branches in other cities and states. Having direct democracies in those groups also meant that some things would get bogged down by endless debate and schisms, when any action would have been better than no action at all.
So then this is yet another argument against large, powerful states, and an argument for the exact types of communities that anarchists are calling for. Obviously, we need to abolish statehood entirely if we wish to progress. You’re preaching to the choir! No state, no hierarchies, no classes.
There are multiple problems with that. Take something like climate change, for instance. At a community level, there’s not a lot you can do. In fact, at a community level, there’s less you can do, since a single small, local community won’t individually have the resources to do something like, say, build a nuclear power reactor. (Of course, multiple small communities could band together to do that, but then you’ve just recreated the kind of large gov’t that you’re attempting to abolish.) Even worse, you’re likely to have communities like, say, every city in Texas (other than Austin, maybe) that would eliminate all emissions controls in the name of cheap power. Addressing the problem requires not only national regulation, but international regulation, which goes well beyond the ability of local communities.
You’ve also got problems with local communities often running roughshod over individual liberties; e.g., cities tend to be much more forgiving of people being LGBTQ+ than small communities, and LGBTQ rights tend to be protected by states and national governance rather than by community governance. (I’m speaking from experience on this one.)
That’s why I tend to argue for a blended model, something that has strong protections for personal, individual liberties, while still having a solid framework to address problems too large for communities to deal with.
None of those movements that are currently thriving are functioning at anything more than a very, very small, hyper-local level. Which means that none of them are able to affect meaningful change on things like climate collapse. They will die along with the rest of humanity.
I’d say that I’m about half anarchist, and about half libertarian socialist. Give or take.
In my estimation, anarchism–and all other flavors or communism–start to break down past the community level. Humans in general seem to be wired to work communally in tribal groups, but don’t seem to be able to work communally in larger groups without some kind of authoritarian or coercive control. My own experiences with anarchistic groups have been that they work fantastically well at a local level, and then break down immediately once you have to deal with a national organization and branches in other cities and states. Having direct democracies in those groups also meant that some things would get bogged down by endless debate and schisms, when any action would have been better than no action at all.
So then this is yet another argument against large, powerful states, and an argument for the exact types of communities that anarchists are calling for. Obviously, we need to abolish statehood entirely if we wish to progress. You’re preaching to the choir! No state, no hierarchies, no classes.
There are multiple problems with that. Take something like climate change, for instance. At a community level, there’s not a lot you can do. In fact, at a community level, there’s less you can do, since a single small, local community won’t individually have the resources to do something like, say, build a nuclear power reactor. (Of course, multiple small communities could band together to do that, but then you’ve just recreated the kind of large gov’t that you’re attempting to abolish.) Even worse, you’re likely to have communities like, say, every city in Texas (other than Austin, maybe) that would eliminate all emissions controls in the name of cheap power. Addressing the problem requires not only national regulation, but international regulation, which goes well beyond the ability of local communities.
You’ve also got problems with local communities often running roughshod over individual liberties; e.g., cities tend to be much more forgiving of people being LGBTQ+ than small communities, and LGBTQ rights tend to be protected by states and national governance rather than by community governance. (I’m speaking from experience on this one.)
That’s why I tend to argue for a blended model, something that has strong protections for personal, individual liberties, while still having a solid framework to address problems too large for communities to deal with.
I really don’t care what you think. What led you to believe I’d care what some jackass naysayer thinks. Never speak to me again.
So, you don’t have any response. Cool cool.
Let me know how your anarchistic, egalitarian commune is going once you’ve got it up and running, 'kay?
Or I could join one of the many movements that are currently thriving and moving. Enjoy living with blinders and your delusions of grandeur.
None of those movements that are currently thriving are functioning at anything more than a very, very small, hyper-local level. Which means that none of them are able to affect meaningful change on things like climate collapse. They will die along with the rest of humanity.