Page 4 of 18

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:51 pm
by Darnavy
Washington Resistance Army wrote:The single most glaring flaw I can see with anarchism is a fundamental inability to properly defend itself without betraying anarchist values.
Who solves their problems with proclaiming a democratic nation?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:57 pm
by Hukhalia
Salus Maior wrote:
Concejos Unidos wrote:As Hukhalia said, many people don't see anarchism as practicable, but as a theoretical ideal, few see it as bad. Who wouldn't want the elimination of poverty and crime and the free provision of resources without the obligation to work?


Well, if you ever find a Genie you can go ahead and wish for that.

you'll be eating your fucking words when i get that FUCKING lamp

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:59 pm
by Northern Seleucia
Hukhalia wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Well, if you ever find a Genie you can go ahead and wish for that.

you'll be eating your fucking words when i get that FUCKING lamp

What if the genie refuses to help? :eyebrow:

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:59 pm
by Concejos Unidos
Northern Seleucia wrote:
Concejos Unidos wrote:Yes, the anarcho-syndicalist movement came out of the radical wing of the trade unions.

How far did they get in their movement?

Here in the States, Labor Day isn't on 5/1, but the whole reason Labor Day exists around the world is to honor the deaths at the Haymarket Massacre. Also, the 8-hour workday was primarily driven by them and other less radical trade unions. It was on the backdrop of trade union agitation met with brutal government violence that the US got its first labor and antitrust laws in the late 19th century. This was a big movement; Eugene Debs, a founder of the IWW, peaked at 6% of the popular presidential vote in 1912. The major anarchist union of the time, the IWW, was also one of the first to step away from racial discrimination. Most importantly, even though the radicals never took power, they pushed protection for workers and antitrust action into the mainstream discourse which led to federal laws significantly advancing labor rights. Unfortunately, with American entry into WWI, the government used pro-war patriotism and wartime legislation to effectively suppress the anti-war anarcho-syndicalist movement.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:00 pm
by Hukhalia
Northern Seleucia wrote:
Hukhalia wrote:you'll be eating your fucking words when i get that FUCKING lamp

What if the genie refuses to help? :eyebrow:

violence

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:02 pm
by Northern Seleucia
Concejos Unidos wrote:
Northern Seleucia wrote:How far did they get in their movement?

Here in the States, Labor Day isn't on 5/1, but the whole reason Labor Day exists around the world is to honor the deaths at the Haymarket Massacre. Also, the 8-hour workday was primarily driven by them and other less radical trade unions. It was on the backdrop of trade union agitation met with brutal government violence that the US got its first labor and antitrust laws in the late 19th century. This was a big movement; Eugene Debs, a founder of the IWW, peaked at 6% of the popular presidential vote in 1912. The major anarchist union of the time, the IWW, was also one of the first to step away from racial discrimination. Most importantly, even though the radicals never took power, they pushed protection for workers and antitrust action into the mainstream discourse which led to federal laws significantly advancing labor rights. Unfortunately, with American entry into WWI, the government used pro-war patriotism and wartime legislation to effectively suppress the anti-war anarcho-syndicalist movement.

Ah, shit, I had no idea that whole movement was anarcho-syndaliclism, it makes sense now.

Hukhalia wrote:
Northern Seleucia wrote:What if the genie refuses to help? :eyebrow:

violence


That's where the heavily armed part of your Marxism-Leninism kicks in, huh?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:04 pm
by Concejos Unidos
Northern Seleucia wrote:Ah, shit, I had no idea that whole movement was anarcho-syndaliclism, it makes sense now.

To be clear, the late 19th and early 20th century American trade union movement was split between the anarcho-syndicalists and the less radical unions, the respective standard-bearers being the IWW and the AFL (the AFL won out and is now the modern monstrosity that is the AFL-CIO). The whole movement definitely wasn't anarchist and it's hard to say how many people were truly committed to the ideology, since you can go back and see wild fluctuations in IWW membership as strike waves started and passed.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:12 pm
by Jewish Underground State
Finally fixed the new poll

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:15 pm
by Salus Maior
Hukhalia wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Well, if you ever find a Genie you can go ahead and wish for that.

you'll be eating your fucking words when i get that FUCKING lamp


I'd do so gladly. I wouldn't mind living in an Anarchist utopia.

It'd probably get boring after a while though.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:17 pm
by Concejos Unidos
Jewish Underground State wrote:Finally fixed the new poll

What is "true anarchism"? In an ideology as diverse as anarchism, there is no such thing as "true anarchism." Anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, mutualism, etc. are all equally valid forms.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:20 pm
by Northern Seleucia
Concejos Unidos wrote:
Jewish Underground State wrote:Finally fixed the new poll

What is "true anarchism"? In an ideology as diverse as anarchism, there is no such thing as "true anarchism." Anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, mutualism, etc. are all equally valid forms.

Including Anarcho-Capitalism? I've always heard that was the big issue.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:24 pm
by Concejos Unidos
Northern Seleucia wrote:Including Anarcho-Capitalism? I've always heard that was the big issue.

Anarcho-capitalism I don't consider to be anarchism. I can talk about how it is incompatible with anarchist philosophy, but that's opinion. The indisputable facts are that it is descended from a completely separate intellectual tradition, unlike the various left-anarchist traditions which share a lot of their intellectual figures and significant overlaps in philosophy.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:30 pm
by Northern Seleucia
Concejos Unidos wrote:
Northern Seleucia wrote:Including Anarcho-Capitalism? I've always heard that was the big issue.

Anarcho-capitalism I don't consider to be anarchism. I can talk about how it is incompatible with anarchist philosophy, but that's opinion. The indisputable facts are that it is descended from a completely separate intellectual tradition, unlike the various left-anarchist traditions which share a lot of their intellectual figures and significant overlaps in philosophy.

Ah, okay.

So, based on your opinion, why is it incompatible?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:32 pm
by Nevertopia
Washington Resistance Army wrote:The single most glaring flaw I can see with anarchism is a fundamental inability to properly defend itself without betraying anarchist values.

True. Even anarchists have to accept that a hierarchy of government is needed to properly address issues.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:37 pm
by Concejos Unidos
Northern Seleucia wrote:
Concejos Unidos wrote:Anarcho-capitalism I don't consider to be anarchism. I can talk about how it is incompatible with anarchist philosophy, but that's opinion. The indisputable facts are that it is descended from a completely separate intellectual tradition, unlike the various left-anarchist traditions which share a lot of their intellectual figures and significant overlaps in philosophy.

Ah, okay.

So, based on your opinion, why is it incompatible?

The hierarchy and oppression of the state is analogous to the oppression of the capitalist workplace. Anarcho-capitalists are therefore inconsistent in their opposition to hierarchy.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:37 pm
by Infected Mushroom
The problems in my view are:

1. No state
2. No law and order
3. No military

I don’t like that.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:41 pm
by Concejos Unidos
Infected Mushroom wrote:The problems in my view are:

1. No state
2. No law and order
3. No military

I don’t like that.

Shows what you know that you put no military. All historical anarchist territories were born out of war and fought for their existence.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:45 pm
by Jewish Underground State
Concejos Unidos wrote:
Northern Seleucia wrote:Including Anarcho-Capitalism? I've always heard that was the big issue.

Anarcho-capitalism I don't consider to be anarchism. I can talk about how it is incompatible with anarchist philosophy, but that's opinion. The indisputable facts are that it is descended from a completely separate intellectual tradition, unlike the various left-anarchist traditions which share a lot of their intellectual figures and significant overlaps in philosophy.

Does anyone besides ancaps?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:46 pm
by Concejos Unidos
Jewish Underground State wrote:
Concejos Unidos wrote:Anarcho-capitalism I don't consider to be anarchism. I can talk about how it is incompatible with anarchist philosophy, but that's opinion. The indisputable facts are that it is descended from a completely separate intellectual tradition, unlike the various left-anarchist traditions which share a lot of their intellectual figures and significant overlaps in philosophy.

Does anyone besides ancaps?

Left-anarchists are pretty united on rejecting them.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:47 pm
by Northern Seleucia
Welcome to Ancapistan

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 11:16 pm
by Kubra
Northern Seleucia wrote:
Kubra wrote: In its heyday, anarchism was generally the radical wing of the trade union movement, largely pushing for those who worked in a place of business to own where they worked and also to themselves make the decisions on the running of the business, which is why the only extant international anarchist org left purports to be a labour union and concerns itself largely with, you guessed it, unionising.

Hence the whole idea of anarcho-syndicalism?
yes, but in its heyday "anarcho-syndicalism" would have been regarded as a strange term, since it was the only thing calling itself anarchism that a person was liable to encounter outside of, say, strange and secretive political cells involving Russians.
In any case, the big defining aspect of anarchism was largely that it's internal bureaucracy involved a lot of procedural rules, largely on the matter of voting, that of course we're so even for the smallest administrative units. A joke would be that a household of anarchists would not be able to make breakfast without calling a special sitting of the household executive committee to decide on eggs or porridge before sending it down the greater household assembly for ratification.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 11:19 pm
by New Zoigai
Anarchy is a goverment system that can never last more than 3 years, Someone is eventually going to take power.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 11:39 pm
by Kubra
Northern Seleucia wrote:
Concejos Unidos wrote:Yes, the anarcho-syndicalist movement came out of the radical wing of the trade unions.

How far did they get in their movement?
up until 1917 anarchism was the main strain of radical leftism. After was a bit of a moment, but even in 1936 the Spanish CNT could still mobilise tens of thousands of folks to fight on the frontlines of the civil war purely on their presence within the organised labour scene, far more than every other group prior to the reorganisation of the army.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2022 2:09 am
by Comemierdas
I think I belong to the faction believing that anarchy goes against human nature. Whatever group people might form, some kind of hierarchy will shape up sooner or later. If you institutionalize it, you made your first step away from anarchy. If you don't, you still have hierarchies, but more susceptible to arbitrariness. By the way, the bigger a group gets, the more people will actually prefer to be ruled rather than rule themselves. That's not to say they shouldn't have a say, but many can totally live with giving some general consent to the decisions of others every once in a while. So I voted for "anarchy is cringe".

PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:09 am
by HISPIDA
Comemierdas wrote:I think I belong to the faction believing that anarchy goes against human nature. Whatever group people might form, some kind of hierarchy will shape up sooner or later. If you institutionalize it, you made your first step away from anarchy. If you don't, you still have hierarchies, but more susceptible to arbitrariness. By the way, the bigger a group gets, the more people will actually prefer to be ruled rather than rule themselves. That's not to say they shouldn't have a say, but many can totally live with giving some general consent to the decisions of others every once in a while. So I voted for "anarchy is cringe".

'm not one to defend anarchists but the "human nature" argument kinda sucks? it implies a static and unchanging human nature but that's very obviously not true