LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Izandai]

Why?

Because having the proletariat vote on issues is more just than decisions being made based on personal merit (which generally leads to elitism) or on family background (aristocracy). To me, the overriding principle in all matters is justice. Neither a meritocracy nor an aristocracy is just. In the case of a meritocracy, intelligence becomes a factor in success (which is not something we can generally control). With an aristocracy, well, I already said all I need to say on that subject.

Why should intelligence not be a factor in success?

[Crysuko]

Because having the proletariat vote on issues is more just than decisions being made based on personal merit (which generally leads to elitism) or on family background (aristocracy). To me, the overriding principle in all matters is justice. Neither a meritocracy nor an aristocracy is just. In the case of a meritocracy, intelligence becomes a factor in success (which is not something we can generally control). With an aristocracy, well, I already said all I need to say on that subject.

Why should intelligence not be a factor in success?

because then it becomes an IQ circlejerk instead of a government supposed to represent the people. a bunch of ivory tower intellectuals sneering and condescending to the unwashed masses.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Why should intelligence not be a factor in success?

Success in the sense of holding a particular job, sure. Obviously, it takes more intelligence to do some jobs than others. However, not success in the sense of holding more power, or making a considerably greater living, than others.

[Mardla]

Why?

Because having the proletariat vote on issues is more just than decisions being made based on personal merit (which generally leads to elitism) or on family background (aristocracy). To me, the overriding principle in all matters is justice. Neither a meritocracy nor an aristocracy is just. In the case of a meritocracy, intelligence becomes a factor in success (which is not something we can generally control). With an aristocracy, well, I already said all I need to say on that subject.

I don't see proles ruling as just because I don't think proles are good at statecraft.

[Crysuko]

Because having the proletariat vote on issues is more just than decisions being made based on personal merit (which generally leads to elitism) or on family background (aristocracy). To me, the overriding principle in all matters is justice. Neither a meritocracy nor an aristocracy is just. In the case of a meritocracy, intelligence becomes a factor in success (which is not something we can generally control). With an aristocracy, well, I already said all I need to say on that subject.

I don't see proles ruling as just because I don't think proles are good at statecraft.

then remove the state. there is no need for a centralised governmental entity, when decentralisation would much better fit rule by the proletariat.

[Mardla]

I don't see proles ruling as just because I don't think proles are good at statecraft.

then remove the state. there is no need for a centralised governmental entity, when decentralisation would much better fit rule by the proletariat.

I am against the state as it were.

[Crysuko]

then remove the state. there is no need for a centralised governmental entity, when decentralisation would much better fit rule by the proletariat.

I am against the state as it were.

"as it were" meaning what exactly

[Kowani]

I don't see proles ruling as just because I don't think proles are good at statecraft.

then remove the state. there is no need for a centralised governmental entity, when decentralisation would much better fit rule by the proletariat.

Yes, because that has no major problems that a third grader could see.

Can't sue for medical malpractice if their are no standards!

[The Liberated Territories]

Ngl most communist anarchists are statists, or approve of monopolizing violence to a certain extent.

What is different from the commune that employs roving militias (like Mahknovia) to tried socialist dictatorships? Perhaps merely the level of organization from which violence is carried out.

[Crysuko]

then remove the state. there is no need for a centralised governmental entity, when decentralisation would much better fit rule by the proletariat.

Yes, because that has no major problems that a third grader could see.

Can't sue for medical malpractice if their are no standards!

Kowani confirmed for 3rd grader :^)
srsrly though, my preferred system (syndicalism) posits a minimal government formed by trade unions and worker councils

[Mattopilos II]

Ngl most communist anarchists are statists, or approve of monopolizing violence to a certain extent.

What is different from the commune that employs roving militias (like Mahknovia) to tried socialist dictatorships? Perhaps merely the level of organization from which violence is carried out.

One of many times you say something sensible.

[Conserative Morality]

How does anarchy protect itself against larger-scale organized violence?

[Crysuko]

How does anarchy protect itself against larger-scale organized violence?

standing militias and armed populace. syndicalism handles it by having a military union under control of the main congress

[Kubra]

How does anarchy protect itself against larger-scale organized violence?

Anarchism.
Probably by applying its own large-scale organised violence. Dictatorship may have brought the end of the roman republic (well, as one factor), but before that it otherwise functioned as expected.
Even a non-state has state-like features.

[Conserative Morality]

standing militias and armed populace.

How can that compete with standing, profession militaries and organized mass levies?

Anarchism.
Probably by applying its own large-scale organised violence. Dictatorship may have brought the end of the roman republic (well, as one factor), but before that it otherwise functioned as expected.
Even a non-state has state-like features.

... but the Roman Republic wasn't an anarchist society. It was a functioning state.

[Crysuko]

discard the preconception that militias are inherently crap, and it starts to make sense. they are dedicated troops with specialties, and may be of the same quality as the professional troops a state would have. and an armed populace can play merry hell with enemy supply lines, reinforcements and communications.

[Mattopilos II]

standing militias and armed populace.

How can that compete with standing, profession militaries and organized mass levies?

Anarchism.
Probably by applying its own large-scale organised violence. Dictatorship may have brought the end of the roman republic (well, as one factor), but before that it otherwise functioned as expected.
Even a non-state has state-like features.

... but the Roman Republic wasn't an anarchist society. It was a functioning state.

I don't think he was suggesting it was. He even said "Even a non-state has state-like features". That is to say, there is never going to be a complete separation of things that exist under a state to what exists under an anarchic society, lest you go into Hitler Ate Sugar territory of argumentation.

[Kubra]

standing militias and armed populace.

How can that compete with standing, profession militaries and organized mass levies?

Anarchism.
Probably by applying its own large-scale organised violence. Dictatorship may have brought the end of the roman republic (well, as one factor), but before that it otherwise functioned as expected.
Even a non-state has state-like features.

... but the Roman Republic wasn't an anarchist society. It was a functioning state.

It was one polity among others, and regardless of ideals, most polities will tend to have at least some characteristics in common. Anarchists in the internet, early american republicans, and post-civil war bolsheviks all had the same debate: should we have a standing army or just local militia formations?

[Conserative Morality]

discard the preconception that militias are inherently crap, and it starts to make sense.

It really doesn't. Militias can be competent, but that's the extent of it. As a wise man once said, "To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff."

they are dedicated troops with specialties,

No, they're part-time soldiers. Otherwise they're not militia.

and may be of the same quality as the professional troops a state would have.

"People whose sole job is operating their specific military occupation aren't any better than people who train occasionally and have a civilian life at all other times"

and an armed populace can play merry hell with enemy supply lines, reinforcements and communications.

Not really. As innumerable pre-modern wars and a good number of modern wars have shown, the primary factor in whether or not an unhappy occupied populace can affect the course of a war is the willingness of the occupiers to use extreme measures to quell them.

[Conserative Morality]

I don't think he was suggesting it was. He even said "Even a non-state has state-like features". That is to say, there is never going to be a complete separation of things that exist under a state to what exists under an anarchic society, lest you go into Hitler Ate Sugar territory of argumentation.

Then why bring up the Roman Republic? And tbqh that sounds more like an excuse than anything. If you can't define what makes a state and exclude those characteristics, how are you not just forming a different state?

It was one polity among others, and regardless of ideals, most polities will tend to have at least some characteristics in common. Anarchists in the internet, early american republicans, and post-civil war bolsheviks all had the same debate: should we have a standing army or just local militia formations?

American republicans, Bolsheviks, and Roman Republicans all came to the same conclusion as well. Militias are simply not up to the task of organized defense against mass professional armies over a broad theatre of operations.

[Mattopilos II]

Ever heard of Asymmetric warfare?

[Crysuko]

discard the preconception that militias are inherently crap, and it starts to make sense.

It really doesn't. Militias can be competent, but that's the extent of it. As a wise man once said, "To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff."

they are dedicated troops with specialties,

No, they're part-time soldiers. Otherwise they're not militia.

and may be of the same quality as the professional troops a state would have.

"People whose sole job is operating their specific military occupation aren't any better than people who train occasionally and have a civilian life at all other times"

and an armed populace can play merry hell with enemy supply lines, reinforcements and communications.

Not really. As innumerable pre-modern wars and a good number of modern wars have shown, the primary factor in whether or not an unhappy occupied populace can affect the course of a war is the willingness of the occupiers to use extreme measures to quell them.

You may also note in the edit I made, syndicalism posits a standing army under the command of a military union, which in turn answers to a congress of unions and worker councils. How would a syndicalist society defend itself? The same way any other would, the difference being the command is more decentralised with the possibility of elected officers.

[Conserative Morality]

Ever heard of Asymmetric warfare?

It's not a cure-all. It's a useful addendum to other forms of warfare in a total war situation.

[Mattopilos II]

Ever heard of Asymmetric warfare?

It's not a cure-all. It's a useful addendum to other forms of warfare in a total war situation.

And conventional warfare isn't a cure-all either.

[Conserative Morality]

You may also note in the edit I made, syndicalism posits a standing army under the command of a military union, which in turn answers to a congress of unions and worker councils. How would a syndicalist society defend itself? The same way any other would, the difference being the command is more decentralised with the possibility of elected officers.

Who funds these soldiers? Who decides what level of funding they have? Who determines the distribution of forces? Who ensures training is up to snuff? Who enforces the muster when the call to arms is made?

At some point, your group of people with guns enforcing a coercive regime against a population offered token representation doesn't seem that much different from any other.