Anarchism assumes independent, self-organising societies working together on mutual understanding and cooperation. What do you think nation states are and doing now?
Just like communism, anarchism sounds good in theory but in practice does not work and empirically deviate entirely-- almost perversely different from the concept. They only work on a small scale with people of who are like-minded and similar culture to respect each others boundaries. Issues as wide reaching as climate change requires global scale solution; and not everyone thinks the same. It doesn’t matter if you and I organise locally, if groups on the other side of the world are not pulling their weight to combat climate change. Going back to my initial comment, sure we both save water, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to what is lost to pipe leaks or even other people using water excessively and needlessly. As we speak, some people in Arizona and China are playing golf, and golf parks always need constant watering. Those gallons water used in golf parks could be used to something more productive instead. Good luck with your community telling Arizonan and Chinese golfers to stop wasting water. I am guessing you did not even read the article on rich countries giving money to poorer countries to help mitigate the climate change, but poorer countries spend them elsewhere, even though they are the ones who beg for funds to help with transition to clean energy.
Maybe anarchism on global scale will work one day (I sure hope so), but it will take probably couple of hundreds of years of advancement in technology and communication to allow for cultural exchange that would permeate across the world, and thus lead to having a common global culture to facilitate the system. But at the moment, anarchism would not work to solve climate change. That is literally what is happening right now.
Nations states are dominance hierarchies, they are not self-organising and they do not depend on mutual understanding or cooperation. They depend on establishing a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Look at any law in a nation state. Push hard enough against it and you will find the barrel of a gun.
These laws are not established by consent, they are established by a ruling class that is mainly beholden to wealthy and powerful interests, far more than it is beholden to the rest of the people. That is not cooperation. There is science to back this up if you want it.
Anarchism is working in plenty of places where it has displaced the dominant state, and apart from that there are many groups that are absolutely “pulling their weight” as you call it.
Look at indigenous land defender movements all over the world, they have as a key part of their movements environmental conservation and combating climate change. In my country Gurridyula is an indigenous black rapper who sings about the years he’s spent with his group living out on the land keeping the coal company Adani from mining there. He’s fighting legal battles on one side and literally facing up against massive groups of police on the other. Is he pulling his weight? The state is trying to force him off his land so they can mine for more coal to drive climate change.
This is a common thread in decentralised resistance groups everywhere.
People aren’t stupid, if we didn’t have states sending cops to oppress us and physically stop us from tearing these corporations to pieces we would’ve done it long ago. The idea that you need a state to convince people to work in their best interests is absurd.
The fact you don’t know about this resistance is emblematic of hierarchical programming. There is a lot more out there than you realise. I tried to tell you that, but you just keep on insisting that it simply doesn’t exist. It’s really strange.
There is a tipping point on the way. Two years ago most people didn’t know what the fediverse was but it’s slowly spreading, like a mycelial network of resistance, and now John Oliver is talking about it. Once it gets to some percentage of mainstream adoption I think it’s going to tip.
Anarchism follows the same strategy. Did you know that federation as the fediverse practices it is literally an anarchist method? That practice of federation is how local cells link up and support one another.
So if you want an example of anarchism working, just look at this platform.
Anarchism works with consent from people, nation states are built with consent from people. Problem is, various groups do not agree with each other. Like I said, good luck telling Chinese and Arizonan golfers to stop wasting water and pull their weight. I am sure they will stop because they care about the environment same as you and I. As I mentioned to another comment, you and I may agree, but other groups from afar don’t and don’t care because they have different values. Some believe in peace, others are war-like. This is anarchism already in action whether you admit it or not.
Sorry, which is it? Are nation states built by consent and therefore anarchistic and therefore anarchism works, or is it completely impractical at scale and has never worked? Make up your mind.
If you really think that any anarchist would accept that states are anarchistic then you’re just admitting you don’t know anything about it.
If you think states are built by consent, why? How? When did this happen? I don’t remember consenting, do you? What an incredible act of gaslighting.
And like… golfers? Really? Anarchism doesn’t work because golf exists? Those are rich people, propped up by the state. That’s nothing. That’s not an argument that makss any sense to me.
Again, you will have to tell me that you are curious to understand what I’m saying before I continue.
Anarchism and nation state are one and the same. People from each group organise their society however they see fit. Some believe on horizontal societies, others believe in hierarchy (the nation state). So, that is a conceptual framework of anarchism. Each groups organise their own community however they see fit. But, some groups are violent and expansionist. Do you think EZLN and Rojava are not under threat from their neighbours who believe in might makes right?
And like… golfers? Really? Anarchism doesn’t work because golf exists? Those are rich people, propped up by the state. That’s nothing. That’s not an argument that makss any sense to me.
Anarchism does not work, because some groups don’t share the same values. Some groups value material wealth and personal property. I am guessing you haven’t been to other places far from your own, or met other cultures from afar to observe that. Which is why organising locally to prevent climate change won’t work if others are not pulling their weight. It is a global problem that requires globally organised and coordinated solution. And the problem in and of itself is that some groups don’t care.
This is absurd. You’re talking in circles and not responding to my words, and you have completely ignored me asking if you’re actually curious to understand what I’m saying.
If you can’t even pretend to be curious to understand me, and in the absence of any evidence that you are, I see no point in continuing to talk to you.
You can change that and bring me back by being reponsive to what I’ve said, although I don’t hold out a lot of hope that you will.
Talk to others outside your culture. Heck, go abroad! You will realise how vast the gulf of difference the values of other cultures are. Too many people don’t care about the environment and want to live hedonistically. This is why anarchism doesn’t work in practice, because this is anarchism in practice. And this is why we are having the global problem called climate change (and global conflicts). Idealist anarchist such as yourself tend not to consider the reality that other people simply think too differently for idealised anarchism to work on a large scale.
That has nothing to do with what I just said. You might want to work on that “talking to other people” thing, because you’re bad at it, and I’m not sticking around for you to inflict more of it on me.
Anarchism assumes independent, self-organising societies working together on mutual understanding and cooperation. What do you think nation states are and doing now?
Just like communism, anarchism sounds good in theory but in practice does not work and empirically deviate entirely-- almost perversely different from the concept. They only work on a small scale with people of who are like-minded and similar culture to respect each others boundaries. Issues as wide reaching as climate change requires global scale solution; and not everyone thinks the same. It doesn’t matter if you and I organise locally, if groups on the other side of the world are not pulling their weight to combat climate change. Going back to my initial comment, sure we both save water, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to what is lost to pipe leaks or even other people using water excessively and needlessly. As we speak, some people in Arizona and China are playing golf, and golf parks always need constant watering. Those gallons water used in golf parks could be used to something more productive instead. Good luck with your community telling Arizonan and Chinese golfers to stop wasting water. I am guessing you did not even read the article on rich countries giving money to poorer countries to help mitigate the climate change, but poorer countries spend them elsewhere, even though they are the ones who beg for funds to help with transition to clean energy.
Maybe anarchism on global scale will work one day (I sure hope so), but it will take probably couple of hundreds of years of advancement in technology and communication to allow for cultural exchange that would permeate across the world, and thus lead to having a common global culture to facilitate the system. But at the moment, anarchism would not work to solve climate change. That is literally what is happening right now.
Nations states are dominance hierarchies, they are not self-organising and they do not depend on mutual understanding or cooperation. They depend on establishing a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Look at any law in a nation state. Push hard enough against it and you will find the barrel of a gun.
These laws are not established by consent, they are established by a ruling class that is mainly beholden to wealthy and powerful interests, far more than it is beholden to the rest of the people. That is not cooperation. There is science to back this up if you want it.
Anarchism is working in plenty of places where it has displaced the dominant state, and apart from that there are many groups that are absolutely “pulling their weight” as you call it.
Look at indigenous land defender movements all over the world, they have as a key part of their movements environmental conservation and combating climate change. In my country Gurridyula is an indigenous black rapper who sings about the years he’s spent with his group living out on the land keeping the coal company Adani from mining there. He’s fighting legal battles on one side and literally facing up against massive groups of police on the other. Is he pulling his weight? The state is trying to force him off his land so they can mine for more coal to drive climate change.
This is a common thread in decentralised resistance groups everywhere.
People aren’t stupid, if we didn’t have states sending cops to oppress us and physically stop us from tearing these corporations to pieces we would’ve done it long ago. The idea that you need a state to convince people to work in their best interests is absurd.
The fact you don’t know about this resistance is emblematic of hierarchical programming. There is a lot more out there than you realise. I tried to tell you that, but you just keep on insisting that it simply doesn’t exist. It’s really strange.
There is a tipping point on the way. Two years ago most people didn’t know what the fediverse was but it’s slowly spreading, like a mycelial network of resistance, and now John Oliver is talking about it. Once it gets to some percentage of mainstream adoption I think it’s going to tip.
Anarchism follows the same strategy. Did you know that federation as the fediverse practices it is literally an anarchist method? That practice of federation is how local cells link up and support one another.
So if you want an example of anarchism working, just look at this platform.
Anarchism works with consent from people, nation states are built with consent from people. Problem is, various groups do not agree with each other. Like I said, good luck telling Chinese and Arizonan golfers to stop wasting water and pull their weight. I am sure they will stop because they care about the environment same as you and I. As I mentioned to another comment, you and I may agree, but other groups from afar don’t and don’t care because they have different values. Some believe in peace, others are war-like. This is anarchism already in action whether you admit it or not.
Sorry, which is it? Are nation states built by consent and therefore anarchistic and therefore anarchism works, or is it completely impractical at scale and has never worked? Make up your mind.
If you really think that any anarchist would accept that states are anarchistic then you’re just admitting you don’t know anything about it.
If you think states are built by consent, why? How? When did this happen? I don’t remember consenting, do you? What an incredible act of gaslighting.
And like… golfers? Really? Anarchism doesn’t work because golf exists? Those are rich people, propped up by the state. That’s nothing. That’s not an argument that makss any sense to me.
Again, you will have to tell me that you are curious to understand what I’m saying before I continue.
Anarchism and nation state are one and the same. People from each group organise their society however they see fit. Some believe on horizontal societies, others believe in hierarchy (the nation state). So, that is a conceptual framework of anarchism. Each groups organise their own community however they see fit. But, some groups are violent and expansionist. Do you think EZLN and Rojava are not under threat from their neighbours who believe in might makes right?
Anarchism does not work, because some groups don’t share the same values. Some groups value material wealth and personal property. I am guessing you haven’t been to other places far from your own, or met other cultures from afar to observe that. Which is why organising locally to prevent climate change won’t work if others are not pulling their weight. It is a global problem that requires globally organised and coordinated solution. And the problem in and of itself is that some groups don’t care.
This is absurd. You’re talking in circles and not responding to my words, and you have completely ignored me asking if you’re actually curious to understand what I’m saying.
If you can’t even pretend to be curious to understand me, and in the absence of any evidence that you are, I see no point in continuing to talk to you.
You can change that and bring me back by being reponsive to what I’ve said, although I don’t hold out a lot of hope that you will.
Talk to others outside your culture. Heck, go abroad! You will realise how vast the gulf of difference the values of other cultures are. Too many people don’t care about the environment and want to live hedonistically. This is why anarchism doesn’t work in practice, because this is anarchism in practice. And this is why we are having the global problem called climate change (and global conflicts). Idealist anarchist such as yourself tend not to consider the reality that other people simply think too differently for idealised anarchism to work on a large scale.
That has nothing to do with what I just said. You might want to work on that “talking to other people” thing, because you’re bad at it, and I’m not sticking around for you to inflict more of it on me.
Agree to disagree but the way the world works at the moment is just how it is and the reality.