Anarchism, Arguments For and Against

[Jewish Underground State]

I made this thread a few days ago but It got locked due to my terrible opening. This thread is for discussing Anarchism. But first, what is Anarchism?

Anarchism is a left wing political ideology that wishes for the removal of nation states, social classes and any form of authority. Anarchism has been around for hundreds of years but it took off around the Enlightenment. It was and still is one of the most outspoken left wing ideologies but also one of the most criticized. Criticism of Anarchism ranges from being impossible to achieve to it’s followers being terrorists. Nonetheless Anarchism is still around today as a strong ideology of the left.

So what aspects of anarchism should we talk about? We should talk about its policies, its philosophy about human governing and if it can be achieved. You can bring up more but those are some starting points.

We may also talk about the ideologies Anarchism inspired like Anarcho-Capitalism, Anarcho-Communism and more. We should bring them up for reasons like comparison to Anarchism as they were inspired from it and can give us a better understanding of Anarchism as a whole.

Follow all of Nationstate’s rules, do not glorify violence or terrorists.

So to start this thread off. If anarchism calls for no authority does that mean that anarchist groups are breaking their own principles since any organization of a group needs an authority to hold the group together?

(Btw let me know if this intro needs work)

[Hukhalia]

i for one approve of the shafting of "an"caps in the OP

[Washington Resistance Army]

The single most glaring flaw I can see with anarchism is a fundamental inability to properly defend itself without betraying anarchist values.

[Indomitable Friendship]

i for one approve of the shafting of "an"caps in the OP

I've always found this sentiment curious. In all forms of Anarchism, you still have authorities over labor, except in some, you're not allowed to use money, which is authoritarian in itself.

[Hukhalia]

i for one approve of the shafting of "an"caps in the OP

I've always found this sentiment curious. In all forms of Anarchism, you still have authorities over labor, except in some, you're not allowed to use money, which is authoritarian in itself.

it isnt that you aren't allowed to use money, only that the need for money never arises

[Uan aa Boa]

So to start this thread off. If anarchism calls for no authority does that mean that anarchist groups are breaking their own principles since any organization of a group needs an authority to hold the group together?

No. Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. So it should oppose a state whose control everyone is subject to whether they like it or not, but needn't object to people voluntarily forming groups that they're later free to withdraw from.

I don't think dwelling on the prospects for an anarchist society is helpful because it's not going to happen, but there are some helpful ideas out there that encourage us to look for solutions that work from the bottom up rather than the top down. Anarchist principles such as consensus voting can be beneficial in running small local projects.

[Indomitable Friendship]

I've always found this sentiment curious. In all forms of Anarchism, you still have authorities over labor, except in some, you're not allowed to use money, which is authoritarian in itself.

it isnt that you aren't allowed to use money, only that the need for money never arises

I doubt that AnComs would permit it, as they seem rather authoritarian, but you still have authority bodies governing labor & there was already an Anarchist state that tried doing without a monetary system to immediate failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina#Money

Moneyless trade doesn't scale up. It's only feasible for small underdeveloped communities. I'm not actually an AnCap, but the labelling of it as not Anarchism is misplaced when there is authority over labor in every system except for the most rudimentary & simplistic 1's. AnCap is the closest thing we have to modern Anarchism being feasible in the modern world.

[Hukhalia]

it isnt that you aren't allowed to use money, only that the need for money never arises

I doubt that AnComs would permit it, as they seem rather authoritarian, but you still have authority bodies governing labor & there was already an Anarchist state that tried doing without a monetary system to immediate failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina#Money

Moneyless trade doesn't scale up. It's only feasible for small underdeveloped communities. I'm not actually an AnCap, but the labelling of it as not Anarchism is misplaced when there is authority over labor in every system except for the most rudimentary & simplistic 1's. AnCap is the closest thing we have to modern Anarchism being feasible in the modern world.

i mean this is all mainly because anarchism is incapable of existing in the first place as authority bodies will always exist, much moreso in warzones

you're looking for the wrong girl to defend anarchism, lol, i'm just outlining the theory

[Indomitable Friendship]

I doubt that AnComs would permit it, as they seem rather authoritarian, but you still have authority bodies governing labor & there was already an Anarchist state that tried doing without a monetary system to immediate failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina#Money

Moneyless trade doesn't scale up. It's only feasible for small underdeveloped communities. I'm not actually an AnCap, but the labelling of it as not Anarchism is misplaced when there is authority over labor in every system except for the most rudimentary & simplistic 1's. AnCap is the closest thing we have to modern Anarchism being feasible in the modern world.

i mean this is all mainly because anarchism is incapable of existing in the first place as authority bodies will always exist, much moreso in warzones

you're looking for the wrong girl to defend anarchism, lol, i'm just outlining the theory

We're in agreement, then, because I don't actually believe true anarchism exists, either. There's always somebody with more power & influence over others.

[Jewish Underground State]

it isnt that you aren't allowed to use money, only that the need for money never arises

I doubt that AnComs would permit it, as they seem rather authoritarian, but you still have authority bodies governing labor & there was already an Anarchist state that tried doing without a monetary system to immediate failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina#Money

Moneyless trade doesn't scale up. It's only feasible for small underdeveloped communities. I'm not actually an AnCap, but the labelling of it as not Anarchism is misplaced when there is authority over labor in every system except for the most rudimentary & simplistic 1's. AnCap is the closest thing we have to modern Anarchism being feasible in the modern world.

We should also look at Catalonia during the spanish civil war

[Adamede]

I actually respect anarchists to an extent, I feel like they're probably the revoltuionary group least likely to push me against a wall and shoot me but I also sympathise with the wanting to do away with unjust hierarchies and truly free mankind. However I just find it impractical. Anarchist movements have been crushed by any organized state they ever fought. Tey put up a good fight, but organized armies tend to npt be very anarchist, so you either get a not very anarchist militiant organization which tdefacto ends up becoming a state of some kind, or you get an ineffectual bunch of guerrillas.

E: Also I doubt an anarachist society would be able to sustaine the high tech lifestyles of our current civilizations.

[Hukhalia]

I actually respect anarchists to an extent, I feel like they're probably the revoltuionary group least likely to push me against a wall and shoot me but I also sympathise with the wanting to do away with unjust hierarchies and truly free mankind. However I just find it impractical. Anarchist movements have been crushed by any organized state they ever fought. Tey put up a good fight, but organized armies tend to npt be very anarchist, so you either get a not very anarchist militiant organization which tdefacto ends up becoming a state of some kind, or you get an ineffectual bunch of guerrillas.

E: Also I doubt an anarachist society would be able to sustaine the high tech lifestyles of our current civilizations.

good to note here that the anarchists are probably about as likely to put you up against a wall as anyone else, revolutionary catalonia was famously liberal with its treatment of reactionaries

[Jewish Underground State]

I actually respect anarchists to an extent, I feel like they're probably the revoltuionary group least likely to push me against a wall and shoot me but I also sympathise with the wanting to do away with unjust hierarchies and truly free mankind. However I just find it impractical. Anarchist movements have been crushed by any organized state they ever fought. Tey put up a good fight, but organized armies tend to npt be very anarchist, so you either get a not very anarchist militiant organization which tdefacto ends up becoming a state of some kind, or you get an ineffectual bunch of guerrillas.

The Makhnovists were pretty overconfident in their ability to get new members. The lost to the Soviets since most people would rather have peace over freedom.

[Hukhalia]

I actually respect anarchists to an extent, I feel like they're probably the revoltuionary group least likely to push me against a wall and shoot me but I also sympathise with the wanting to do away with unjust hierarchies and truly free mankind. However I just find it impractical. Anarchist movements have been crushed by any organized state they ever fought. Tey put up a good fight, but organized armies tend to npt be very anarchist, so you either get a not very anarchist militiant organization which tdefacto ends up becoming a state of some kind, or you get an ineffectual bunch of guerrillas.

The Makhnovists were pretty overconfident in their ability to get new members. The lost to the Soviets since most people would rather have peace over freedom.

ONLY GOOD THING TROTSKY EVER DID

[Jewish Underground State]

The Makhnovists were pretty overconfident in their ability to get new members. The lost to the Soviets since most people would rather have peace over freedom.

ONLY GOOD THING TROTSKY EVER DID

Disagree. While Makhno was going to betray the soviets. Trotsky was not justified by killing Makhno's officers. Pretty Stalinist move.

[Indomitable Friendship]

I doubt that AnComs would permit it, as they seem rather authoritarian, but you still have authority bodies governing labor & there was already an Anarchist state that tried doing without a monetary system to immediate failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina#Money

Moneyless trade doesn't scale up. It's only feasible for small underdeveloped communities. I'm not actually an AnCap, but the labelling of it as not Anarchism is misplaced when there is authority over labor in every system except for the most rudimentary & simplistic 1's. AnCap is the closest thing we have to modern Anarchism being feasible in the modern world.

We should also look at Catalonia during the spanish civil war

I'm unfamiliar with that.

[Hukhalia]

ONLY GOOD THING TROTSKY EVER DID

Disagree. While Makhno was going to betray the soviets. Trotsky was not justified. Pretty Stalinist move.

bandit armies roving around the ukraine are bad actually

[Jewish Underground State]

Disagree. While Makhno was going to betray the soviets. Trotsky was not justified. Pretty Stalinist move.

bandit armies roving around the ukraine are bad actually

But they helped the soviets at first. Makhno even talked to Lenin and Trotsky. In return the ussr even made false rumors on how he was committing pogroms when members of Nambat joined his Free Territory.

[Hukhalia]

bandit armies roving around the ukraine are bad actually

But they helped the soviets at first. Makhno even talked to Lenin and Trotsky. The ussr even made false rumors on how he was committing pogroms when members of Nambat joined his Free Territory.

shrug. he was an obstacle. obstacles get removed. 'tis how war works. makhno wouldn't have been content to sit on top of his hastily-organised house of cards forever.

[Jewish Underground State]

We should also look at Catalonia during the spanish civil war

I'm unfamiliar with that.

Just Makhnovia 2.0

[Hukhalia]

I'm unfamiliar with that.

Just Makhnovia 2.0

the situation is incomparable tbh

[Jewish Underground State]

But they helped the soviets at first. Makhno even talked to Lenin and Trotsky. The ussr even made false rumors on how he was committing pogroms when members of Nambat joined his Free Territory.

shrug. he was an obstacle. obstacles get removed. 'tis how war works. makhno wouldn't have been content to sit on top of his hastily-organised house of cards forever.

Well his version of communism was much better than anything Lenin could do.

Despite being an anarchist, he was a fan of communist ideals

Russia denies this since it would look like they were going against a comrade and Ukraine denies this to make him seem more nationalist and anti communist

[Jewish Underground State]

I actually respect anarchists to an extent, I feel like they're probably the revoltuionary group least likely to push me against a wall and shoot me but I also sympathise with the wanting to do away with unjust hierarchies and truly free mankind. However I just find it impractical. Anarchist movements have been crushed by any organized state they ever fought. Tey put up a good fight, but organized armies tend to npt be very anarchist, so you either get a not very anarchist militiant organization which tdefacto ends up becoming a state of some kind, or you get an ineffectual bunch of guerrillas.

E: Also I doubt an anarachist society would be able to sustaine the high tech lifestyles of our current civilizations.

As stated earlier, most people would rather have peace then freedom

[The Blaschy]

I actually respect anarchists to an extent, I feel like they're probably the revoltuionary group least likely to push me against a wall and shoot me but I also sympathise with the wanting to do away with unjust hierarchies and truly free mankind. However I just find it impractical. Anarchist movements have been crushed by any organized state they ever fought. Tey put up a good fight, but organized armies tend to npt be very anarchist, so you either get a not very anarchist militiant organization which tdefacto ends up becoming a state of some kind, or you get an ineffectual bunch of guerrillas.

E: Also I doubt an anarachist society would be able to sustaine the high tech lifestyles of our current civilizations.

Yeah. Just enetered this thread and he took the words right outta my mouth. While I have a skeptical view of human nature, I think some people would be fine in an anarchist society. My neighbors for example. They’re peaceful. They own guns, not relying on govt for protection. They live of retirement from the private companies they worked for. They get along well. If the state disappeared tomorrow, they would say, “Hmm. Crazy times we live in.” And carry on with their lives.

Others though, will see the absence of the state as the purge. And I don’t need to explain why that’s bad.

I respect anarchists more than socialists however b/c their ideas haven’t been totally discredited yet and they usually don’t like killing that many people

[Sordhau]

The fundamental weakness of anti-statism is it's inability to propagate a stateless society. Without the state there is no mechanism to preserve the status, thus society becomes vulnerable to mass movements that can change that society - including by leading it away from statelessness. Ideologies like Anarchism thus have no real means to preserve their own existence as their abolishment becomes inevitable because a stateless society is founded on the fundamentally naive belief that all people will want to preserve that statelessness which simply isn't realistic. Without the state there is no means by which to enforce law, fair business practice, regulation, or pretty much anything else necessary to keep criminals from exploiting the public - save for mob rule which is no less arbitrary or oppressive than the state.

Never mind that a stateless society cannot survive in a world where states still exist because a stateless society cannot muster the same industrial capabilities of a statist society putting them at a military disadvantage. Armed militias, while valid threats, are not suitable replacements to a standing, professional armed forces - as the U.S. had to learn the hard way. A statist society--by virtue of having a greater population and industrial capacity which no stateless society can hope to match due to the limited scope in which a stateless society can cover before becoming ineffective--is therefor in a far better position to defeat a stateless society in the event of an armed conflict, thereby making it necessary to abolish all states everywhere in order for stateless societies to thrive and prosper - which isn't possible in the slightest, because it would require a global acknowledgement of a stateless society as being preferable to a statist society which is not a consensus that will ever achieve majority among the human species because the disadvantages of a stateless society far outweigh the advantages.