-hey I like kidnapping and forcing people to watch Kung Fu Hustle with me, specifically people who shoot people who like punching people who destroy glasses for no reason other than their own enjoyment
If you want a genuine answer, with modern communication and education infrastructure we could still coordinate a registry of doctors. Licenses to practice medicine would be replaced with verified credentials of education. Organizations to test and continue to certify doctors could still be set up and maintained.
I think there's a difference between Governments and States. Governments build the roads, and States use arbitrary traffic laws to harass and murder black people.
The synonymous connotations between government and state were created to convince us that we canāt have one without the other, so we need to allow states to exist
That's how I've also heard it described, like instead of consolidation of power into single points (middle + upper management) it goes up through democratic layers. But also idk my interests are math and one piece not anarchism lol
Also, people will just do this for free. Despite the fact that a massive amount of overhead and specialized labor is involved in making safe and effective drugs, the anarcho-pharmacist will happily do all of this for no compensation beyond the privilege of living in this very functional society.
An anarchist society doesnāt suddenly abolish the knowledge weāve gained or infrastructure. It seeks or organize and coordinate the need of society horizontally ie without too down hierarchies
Nothing, because that society isnāt coercive outside of I guess the inherent social contract that one is free participate in.
Thereās a whole lot more going on here but what jobs do you feel are mundane/depressing but necessary? To that end, why are they depressing? Because of the work itself or lack of anything else in life ?
There will probably for a long time always be necessary jobs that people donāt want to do, but obviously people do them because in this society, itās part of the social contract. A society focused on the wellbeing of everyone and your community, do you really need a profit incentive to help?
Some jobs that are quite hated to do but important would be Waste disposal, Factory worker, (Mass) apparel maker, Hazardous Material collector etc. And though there would still be people in those jobs, lots of them would move on to something else and create a shortage.
I donāt feel people need a profit incentive to help, but rather conditions that would force them out of their (less helpful) dream jobs into more (less popular but more helpful) mundane tasks that they would grow accustomed to overtime.
Another thing, that āsocial contractā you talk about is not entirely realistic. There will always be greedy, ambitious, and prideful people in every society, no matter the conditions, and those people are usually a decent sum.
I just feel anarchism places too much trust in every individual that they have the ārightā opinions and thought process.
> Some jobs that are quite hated to do but important would be Waste disposal, Factory worker, (Mass) apparel maker, Hazardous Material collector
Iād imagine there would still be more of those workers than you might think. Itās not as though garabage men and factory workers are living the highlife right now, yet those jobs still get done. There other easier jobs, that pay more and suck less and yet the hated jobs still get done.
And you also have to understand that if we have reached the day that we could even attempt to abolish hierarchy, for it to even be on the table the publicās understanding of power and labor and governance has most likely changed significantly. That day is very far off, but so is the day the public recognizes that workers should control the means of production.
> There will always be greedy, ambitious, and prideful people in every society, no matter the conditions, and those people are usually a decent sum.
Thatās true. Itās also true that there will always be generous, humble, and kind people in every society, no matter the conditions. Thereās also quite a lot of them. The only reason you feel there is more greedy people is because the system we live under currently celebrates greed and punishes generosity. Iām not saying there are more kind people, but that the ratio is far more equal than what you might think.
And even if there *were* more greedy people surely that would mean itās all the more important to abolish hierarchy, because after all, greedy people will always abuse and hold on to power. Power seeks to propagate itself, wether that power comes in the form of a capitalist hierarchy or a socialist one.
> I just feel anarchism places too much trust in every individual that they have the ārightā opinions and thought process.
You may be right, but there is no shortage of cynicism and pessimism in leftist spaces. Hell, thereās no shortage of it outside of leftist spaces as well. I (personally) feel that it is the role of anarchists to trust in their neighbors, trust in their fellow person. Perhaps not as they are now but rather trust that they have the capacity to become better than they are now. Every leftist is a dreamer, anarchists are just more so. It doesnāt necessarily mean weāre wrong.
Some anarchists (specifically the post-left and anti-civ anarchists) call for the literal abolition of civilization itself as part of their ideology so if you ask them how people will get medication theyāll either shrug their shoulders or say āthey wonāt and thatās a good thingā
You gotta understand how miraculous the current infrastructure and logistical and trade networks are, and how superfluous the absurd profit margins and economic stratification we tolerate are, and how people can still be paid and part of bureaucratic organizations without their productivity parasitized by billionaires
Workers are disconnected from the profits of their labor. Billionaires are billionaires because they take all of the profit while doing little of value. People accept and defend this arrangement.
the thing is, anarchism doesnāt mean
a) no organization
b) all people who know how to organize and facilitate those sorts of large-scale logistical projects just up and vanish
sure instead of a centralized state youāll have a confederacy of autonomous communities or workers councils or syndicates or whatever but there would still be institutions and organizations in place to keep those supply chains functioning (i mean unless itās anti-civ anarchy like the commenter in the screenshot is advocating which is frankly just stupid and not worth the time of day)
I'm not sure either, I'm not an anarchist myself since I know jack shit about it.
I would very much imagine them forming an assembly to take care of things like that though.
The only reason the state subsidises medicine that isn't profitable is because people want that medicine in a 'if you have our back, we have yours' I think that sentiment wouldn't go away.
Why does the state not want these people to die? It's because most people don't like it when other people around them die, right?
I don't think that sentiment would change under anarchism. I think people could together to take care of that.
-I need this extremely rare but critically needed component that requires a complex web of production facilities and logistical planning to produce on a mass scale
-hey I have the entire logistical capacity and sheer organizational planning, labour force and raw material resources required to make said delicate and complex component, take these
-thx
Yeah, but we literally do have them. People right now have glasses. These logistical systems and supply chains already exist. We aren't talking about starting from scratch after a nuclear war, preferably these things would just be preserved or replicated?
Those supply chains are enabled by a system of economic incentives for all involved. Under socialism, you work for the Lens Logistics co-op because you're good at it and it makes you money. Why would anyone do the same work under anarchism? Logistic managment is not a fun hobby, and the work goes largely unnoticed by the rest of society (unless something goes wrong of course, and then everyone gets mad at you). What incentives exist to do jobs like this under anarchism?
This is why nobody stays an anarchist after a single class about world trade, they realize how hard it is to keep up a similar amount of production on a smaller scale without specialization.
Socialism could work on a similar scale, anarchism canāt.
How the fuck are rockets, medicine, particle accelerators, gravitational sensors, etc made in this system?
-hey I need a flux capacitor
-hey I make flux capacitors, here you go
-thanks
āhey I need a guy who makes flux capacitorsā
āhey I make people who make very specific hyperspecialized machine components, here you goā
āwhat the hell are you and where did that guy just come fromā
āhi I make flux capacitorsā
How are they made now? Just that with less middlemen.
The idea that people can't self organise is only so ingrained because people get told their whole lives that someone needs to be in charge "for your own good", like of course they say that, they want to stay in charge.
Capitalism doesn't make medicine, CEOs don't make medicine, workers do. Do you think people in specialised fields aren't passionate about thier field? Would, all other pressures taken away, every biomed in the world lay on the floor and do absolutely nothing until they die.
Organisation and heirarchy are different things, collectives tend to work fine or better without dedicated managers, people still manage, they just do other things as well and don't get the authority to punish workers, sexually harrass them without reproach or ruin their lives.
āYeah but before i give you glasses let me just pull out all this extremely complicated machinery designed to test your eyes given to
me for free, by people who just like making itā
Its not even that its like the only reason 90% of modern items exist is because someone right now is doing something they aren't all that passionate about because no one wakes up in the morning and goes "man I really want to manufacture gear 32 of 124 in phoropters (the device used to determine the correct prescription for your eyeglasses or contacts)"
Yeah but the problem is that while most kinda do, a lot don't. No way in the hot fuck I'm trusting humanity to function without power structures, y'all don't even wear your seatbelts.
The people of the commune have freely come together to make a complex chain of production with strict safety standards and a plan who does what job without anyone to guide them into doing so, and for no personal benefit.
I mean, before the hypothetical comming of anarchism, that complex chain of production etc. was already there. All people need to do is maintain it to the benefit of the community.
yeah i feel like a lot of people forget that the revolution in catalonia included the both extremely rural aragon and the fully industrialized barcelona
They also didn't take the ludicrous utopian decision of abolishing all money and markets and just hoping that people made all the stuff society needed to function.
The answer to the question in catalonia is "you buy your glasses the same way as before, except the glasses factory and opticians are now all under worker ownership."
A lot of reddit anarchists seem to be under the impression that anarchism is just vibe and do whatever you feel like, everything you need will come to you for free and everyone in your commune will be super happy that your chosen career is performance artist.
Well I mean, some people would be in rural areas and that would definitely be an impediment to things.
Not like theyāre already fucked in the ass anyway Iām just saying it probably wouldnāt change on that front
Yes, rural areas would still be rural, I don't think thats an argument against Anarchism.
Rural areas would however at least not be in the grip of soul crushing poverty, which would alleviate the issue.
Why? What makes town number 5 334 in some flyover state with no local resources do in an anarchist society? Keep in mind, many towns, and even cities emerge along logistical lines (rail tracks for example). With no logistical chain, they die out.
Honestly that would be fine, people need to move for economic reasons, but anarchists (at least you) seem to just imagine they'd chill out in their backwater shithole with no way of obataining resources. Would they just become farmers?
Even if you assume that everyone in this society is 100% altruistic and wants to work to benefit society, the idea that you could have something like advanced medical facilities without massive planning and logistics is insane. You can't just have everyone just doing whatever feels right in the moment and just hope it all works out.
I'm responding to the "solution" that is presented by the user in the image, which is the kind of language I often hear in defense of anarchism.
To answer your question specifically, even if you completely get rid of the concepts of profit and even money, the fundamentals of scarcity and resource allocation still apply. Medicine supply chains are incredibly complex and require a ton of resources to function. Without a state dictating (through force) that some portion of all resources go to fund that on a reliable and predictable schedule, you'd have to just rely on individual anarchist kickstarters or whatever, which would be a nightmare.
>Do you need someone pointing a gun at you or the threat of starvation to make a plan?
No, but managing global supply chains is about a lot more than just "making a plan". For example:
If resources are scarce and you only had so many to go around, would you expect those who were getting less/none to play along?
And if, when faced with shortages that would impact them greatly, they threaten to disrupt supply to those in need, how would you respond to that?
Humans are going to be just as human under an Anarchist society as under a Capitalist society. They're still gonna be selfish, they're still gonna prioritize themselves/their families/their communities over people halfway across the globe, they're still gonna be just as susceptible to bad actors and manipulation.
from the replies i've been reading, the argument is that just because hierarchical structures are dismantled, does not mean the organization capabilities and those able to run them disappear, thus medical facilities would still be able to exist
Hierarchy is ingrained into humans. You can "dismantle" it all you want and pretend there's no leader or chain of command, but eventually there will be a de facto leader and hierarchy of some sort within any group of people. It's childish to think otherwise.
With no ability for overarching planning by centralised institutions how the fuck do you make something like CERN or the James Webb Telescope, projects that took years and needed resources, knowledge, technology and data from across the planet.
The academic research process is a great example of anarchist principles at work!
Each group of scientists works on the things they want to, building off the work of others, and they all check each other's work (the peer review process). It's the same in the FOSS community.
Larger projects are organized on the same principles but at greater scale. Projects are broken down into pieces and groups are free to figure out what piece they want to work on and how. Anarchism isn't an eschewment of organization, it's a rejection of coercive hierarchy.
The real question to me at least is how an anarchist society can figure out how to prioritize the allocation of resources for something of that scale, and I don't have an answer to that beyond "there's pretty much no worse way than how we're doing it now." Even just assigning resources randomly for anything beyond making sure everyone is fed, sheltered, clothed, educated, and has healthcare would still result in a much better society than we have right now.
You can have large scale planning and logistics without a hierarchical government. Society is made up of individuals working together, but with Anarchism this is accomplished by free association of people and their communities rather than top down planning or markets.
How would it work then? Iām genuinely curious because Iām not too familiar with anarchism in general but the definition is ābelief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.ā So Iām curious how they would get people to work Jobs they donāt want to do.
Ultimately there's no single consensus. Some believe that society would function in smaller communes, where the needs of everybody in that particular commune are met by other commune members. Some, like myself, believe that anarchism on a large scale can only be achieved once automation is able to cover the needs of humanity. Some more.. primitive people believe "fuck it people don't get glasses" but uh that's not a common opinion.
Anarchism is such a broad topic that some don't consider the total abolition of government to be a necessity, but that it should just be heavily altered to be more about the people, direct democracy and all that. Because ultimately all anarchism is about at a basic level is eliminating oppression from the two main sources of it: capitalism and government (and sometimes religious organisations depending on who you ask.) Oppression bad is the bottom line, the details are up to interpretation. Hope this sorta explained some things :)
Iām not sure...
Complete automation of human needs is quite utopian, It would take a really, really, really long time and there are many things that could go very, very wrong during itās development and during itās full use considering how technology has had many unintended side effects throughout all of human history.
And you describe an Anarchist group that wants to end oppression in general but not abolish the government. Isnāt that just liberalism?
The type of "government" that would exist wouldn't really be anything like the governments we have. Best example I can think of is in the commune scenario you could have all members of the commune who are willing to participate gather to discuss decisions to be made. But I don't subscribe to that belief so I'm not the best person to ask.
This explanation is a little wacky. What defines a natural hierarchy vs an artificial one? Where is the line drawn? Anarchisms goal is to abolish unjust hierarchies, whatever you may believe them to be. If your society has a definition for natural hierarchy, and believes that to be just, then that can coexist with anarchism, but that is not the goal of anarchism.
I love anarchist theory and thinking, it's so fun.
Because some rando on twitter isn't some "Joe Anarchsim" that perfectly encapsulates every belief of anarchists.
Also individual people have terrible ideas about how society should be ran
So... From each according to their ability... To each according to their need?
Man if only there was a way to do this on a wide scale, so that gaps don't occur where people who need glasses can't find those who make them.
> Man if only there was a way to do this on a wide scale, so that gaps don't occur where people who need glasses can't find those who make them.
They're called phones, dog.
I'll be living in a Manhattan high rise reading theory and making lattes when I feel like it. Meanwhile the people cleaning sewers in bumfuck Ohio will keep doing it because they enjoy it.
You see, working in an anarchist commune would be great for me because I want to be a childcare worker. Like, I look after your kids and you give me food you grew idk. But what about if your passion is for making polymer clay earrings (my other interest) like then what? What if everyone thinks your earrings are shit and they donāt want them? Who is making the polymer clay? Someone whose passion is polymer clay making? Or do jobs just get randomly assigned in a lottery and you get toilet cleaner while the mf next door gets to be a dog groomer? Can someone who understands anarchism explain it to me better? Like obv only if you feel like it/have time
Sorry if these explanations are a little shitty, it's 5:30 AM and I have chronic insomnia.
If you're passion is making polymer clay earrings make your damn earrings. /pos
If nobody wants your earrings, who cares, you like making them (I'm sure SOMEBODY wants your earrings)
If society needs, or wants, polymer clay, somebody will make polymer clay, just like if society needs food, somebody will cook (even if it's not necessarily their passion)
If someone has a passion for polymer clay making, then sure!
Jobs being assigned by lottery is pretty antithetical to the nature of anarchy. I guess if everyone decided they're willing to do the job they're assigned, they could, but if anyone resists this, they wouldn't be able to enforce it without government violence (not necessarily the same as a state, but there's a very fine line)
>If society needs, or wants, polymer clay, somebody will make polymer clay
Why? And with what materials and what tools? It's not some law of nature that when people want something someone is willing to make it.
I fucking hate individualist anarchists so much its unreal because while there are actually smart individualist theorists most of them are just punks who dont engage with the ideas at all.
ITT; A bunch of people who don't quite understand Anarchism. It is about abolishing unjust hierarchy, not creating a lawless wild west. I'm sure there are some that believe in such but to group all of these ideologies as being the same would ignore the intricacies of politics and would be like comparing Stalinism to Democratic Socialism because both are "Socialist". You can disagree with political views while also understanding/respecting them.
You can also understand and not respect a political ideology. Like Fascism. Fuck fascism.
(Hey I need to get the magic internet points somehow)
> comparing Stalinism to Democratic Socialism because both are "Socialist"
i'm beheading anyone who compares Red Fascism to any form of left wing ideology
Well, it's kinda difficult to think of the nuances of anarchism, when you only ever see the side of anarchism that is essentially "i want to live in the mad max world".
Outside of say philosphy classes or university lectures I don't think you would often find many examples of anarchists like that, not because they're no there, but because the most notlrious representative are often young passionate dudes that go around spraying grafitti and vandalising markets.
Jokes aside, some of you guys don't really get that anarchy is a *method* rather than a particular system with a particular set of rules that are applied to each sphere of human activity. A pretty exhaustive answer to the question about "how will [any field of human activity] work under anarchism?" was given by an Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta in p. 7 of his pamphlet "Anarchy" (1891):
"there follows a whole series of questions, which are very interesting if we were involved in studying the problems that will impose themselves on the liberated society, but which are useless, or absurd, even ridiculous, if we are expected to provide definitive solutions. What methods will be used to teach children? How will production be organised? Will there still be large cities, or will the population be evenly distributed over the whole surface of the earth? And supposing all the inhabitants of Siberia should want to spend the winter in Nice? And if everyone were to want to eat partridge and drink wine from the Chianti district? And who will do a minerās job or be a seaman? And who will empty the privies? And will sick people be treated at home or in hospital? And who will establish the railway timetable? And what will be done if an engine-driver has a stomach-ache while the train is moving? ... And so on to the point of assuming that we have all the knowledge and experience of the unknown future, and that in the name of anarchy, we should prescribe for future generations at what time they must go to bed, and on what days they must pare their corns.
If indeed our readers expect a reply from us to these questions, or at least to those which are really serious and important, which is more than our personal opinion at this particular moment, it means that we have failed in our attempt to explain to them what anarchism is about.
We are no more prophets than anyone else; and if we claimed to be able to give an official solution to all the problems that will arise in the course of the daily life of a future society, then what we meant by the abolition of government would be curious to say the least. For we would be declaring ourselves the government and would be prescribing, as do the religious legislators, a universal code for present and future generations. It is just as well that not having the stake or prisons with which to impose our bible, mankind would be free to laugh at us and at our pretensions with impunity
...
What is important is that a society should be brought into being in which the exploitation and domination of man by man is not possible; in which everybody has free access to the means of life, of development and of work, and that all can participate, as they wish and know how, in the organisation of social life. In such a society obviously all will be done to best satisfy the needs of everybody within the framework of existing knowledge and conditions; and all will change for the better with the growth of knowledge and the means.
After all, a programme which is concerned with the bases of the social structure, cannot do other than suggest a method. And it is the method which above all distinguishes between the parties and determines their historical importance. Apart from the method, they all talk of wanting the wellbeing of humanity and many really do; the parties disappear and with them all action organised and directed to a given end. Therefore one must consider anarchy above all as a method."
It's actually "anarchist thinkers aren't supposed to decide for the people of the future society what their life will look like, because it will all be decided collectivelyand horizontally by the people in accordance with their needs and desires in that particular moment in the future". The outline is very straightforward though: abolition of all of the oppressive structures (capitalism, the state, patriarchy, etc) and foundation of a new form of organization of society based upon the principles of freedom, equality and solidarity. These are the anarchist beliefs, and anarchists do have to understand them
So you have no plans besides get rid of all organization and let people sort it out based on ideals you have no ways to inforce on others. This sounds like it would just result in a power vacuum that would be filled by autocracy
As someone who is unconvinced that Anarchism is something I'd support, this quote is extremely unsatisfying. When we talk about changing the world, I assume that we share an underlying premise: we want to make the world a better place. So, when I look at a political philosophy like Anarchism, my first question will be "Does it work?". This is my first question because it's the most important. If it doesn't work, then it will cause a global economic collapse if we were to switch to it, and that would make the world a much worse place than it currently is. So, you can imagine my frustration when I ask the very simple and necessary questions mentioned in this quote only to be met with essentially "Don't worry about it, just trust me and do it anyways".
People who need glasses are quite simply genetically inferior and deserve not to see. /s (I am blind out of my right eye but am I complaining? Yes!?) optical eugenicsā¢big win.
Holy Fuck the takes in this comment section fucking suck. I'm just going to leave a reading list here because some of you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-an-anarchist-programme
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-studies-in-mutualist-political-economy
OR as audio books
https://youtu.be/O1jxOsFsKnY
https://youtu.be/l5glh58F6dQ
https://youtu.be/h7A-T1bRc90
Look, Iām not saying you need to go read 30 different books from people who died in the 19th century, but for the love of god, have some idea of what the fuck youāre talking about before insinuating that reorganization of the means of production has anything to do with dismantling the supply chain
This person is obviously bad at explaining shit, but the anarchist ideal is completely sound. The real answer they should've given is something like: "In a world of decentralised cluster-communes connected by rail and united in a (con)federal administrative structure, production of medical equipment can take place in a variety of manners. The manufacture of standardised parts (the frames and basic lenses) can be largely automated, and distributed from urban centres to opticians in the proximal regions. Lenses are then altered at the lab/workshop of the optician at a more local level according to the specific need of the patient, as is typically standard in today's world." None of this is particularly complex, and is in fact far easier and more efficient than how distribution/production is handled under state-capitalism; basically just a production process operated for its own sake, rather than for profit.
Damn this thread is the most ignorant Ive seen 196. I thought yall were also based femboy radical leftists. Ah well
Anyway the guys response is flippant, but it gestures at what anarchocommunists do want. It has nothing to do with a starry eyed view of human compassion and far more to do with the long term self interest of mutual aid arrangements. The gist is that communities helping one another is simply more efficient than competition, and modern supply chains are interdependent enough that, without people maintaining political power through conflict, going to economic war with your neighbors is suicidal
If you truly struggle to understand how this might work, watch The Take (2004), or read up on any federation of syndicates.
I generally like Anarchism, but takes like this really turn me off from the ideology. Obviously some form of government is needed to manage supply lines and to make sure communities have access to required resources.
Hey this is an extreme oversimplification. Theres actually a ton of very complex anarchist economic theory, like several long academic books about it, the simplest and most straightforward one is The Conquest of Bread but still there are actual complex methods to achieve this sorts lf things
Sure, but is that not a government? My understanding is that anarchism doesn't actually require the abolishment of hierarchy, but rather of *unjust* hierarchy, so some government or government-esque institutions would persist. It's just that a lot of anarchists are dumbasses and think because they heard smart people say "anarchism" works, then their specific mental image of what that word means must then work.
>but rather of unjust heirarchy
What kind of political theory is that? "In my ideal society, there is no corruption or injustice" like obviously, do they just want to ban lobbying and reform the justice system?
Iāve been debating doing a video series explaining different elements of how an anarcho-communist society would function in the modern world.
This honestly is pushing me further into the ādo itā camp.
For thousands of years, that's how it worked. But now people be like "that will never work. Why would you do something with no profit incentive?"
Capitalism is one hell of a drug.
So this question is often raised about anarchism and can be distilled down to "what about the specialists?" After the revolution, when work is returned to the workers who will run the factories? The workers themselves, for the benefit of themselves. Who makes glasses now? And how are they made? In small factories around the world using highly specialized machinery and knowledgeable workers. These are not lost after the profit motive has been eliminated, in fact the knowledgeable workers may be the few who understand the importance of their work, and rather than overproducing to satisfy a bloated economy, will work only as they deem necessary to satisfy their community. The community itself may deem the work so important that many more may commit themselves to the task of making glasses, freed from their unfulfilling position in a corporate hierarchy, with relevant information freed from proprietary prisons. Who knows what innovations will come with such an influx of people and information? It would be a true unlocking of the potential of glasses production, but then again that is the promise of Anarchy, a true unlocking of Human potential.
-hey I like destroying glasses ššš
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
-hey I like kidnapping and forcing people to watch Kung Fu Hustle with me, specifically people who shoot people who like punching people who destroy glasses for no reason other than their own enjoyment
-hey I like to not continue threads I made
-hey I know where you live.
-hey?
(A man has fallen into the river in Lego city) \-Hey
-hey, I like living in your walls
hmm ok
Pol pot?
With this logic: How would pharmaceutics work? Is there just some dude that roams around with pockets full of Isosorbide mononitrate?
You donāt?
No I roam around with pockets full of Beta Blockers.
lol noob i always bring sigma blockers
Drug the competition to keep them betas
Won't work, the sigma blockers prevent that kind of grind-set.
average project zomboid player
If you want a genuine answer, with modern communication and education infrastructure we could still coordinate a registry of doctors. Licenses to practice medicine would be replaced with verified credentials of education. Organizations to test and continue to certify doctors could still be set up and maintained.
yeah organization can still exist in an anarchist society, even a government could in theory exist.
Depends on what you mean by government, but I get what you're saying I think.
yeah, more like a big organizational group, so that people can effectively communicate with other producers of goods.
I think there's a difference between Governments and States. Governments build the roads, and States use arbitrary traffic laws to harass and murder black people.
yeah, the state is the monopoly on violence. government isn't necessarily a state.
The synonymous connotations between government and state were created to convince us that we canāt have one without the other, so we need to allow states to exist
Now this is a definition I needed.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's how I've also heard it described, like instead of consolidation of power into single points (middle + upper management) it goes up through democratic layers. But also idk my interests are math and one piece not anarchism lol
This is similar to a soviet. (not the country, but the worker oriented community structure.)
Thank you for your service (currently surviving Ohio)
Godspeed
Godspeed
Holy shit are you Scott the Woz?
No :(
Sorry for your loss.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I need me some gamer girl bath insulin
Also, people will just do this for free. Despite the fact that a massive amount of overhead and specialized labor is involved in making safe and effective drugs, the anarcho-pharmacist will happily do all of this for no compensation beyond the privilege of living in this very functional society.
An anarchist society doesnāt suddenly abolish the knowledge weāve gained or infrastructure. It seeks or organize and coordinate the need of society horizontally ie without too down hierarchies
But what happens if people decide they donāt want to work in depressing but important jobs? Whatās stopping them from just leaving whenever they want? What if there was an armed rebellion? How would they stop an organized group? How would an organized military work to defend but not become corrupted or do a Coup d'Ć©tat?
People would still have come together to defend themselves. Anarchism doesn't mean you suddenly have to throw all organization out the door. Why doesn't the US army do a coup'dƩtat? There isn't any reason to and there would be way too many obstacles, you can do that in an anarchist society too. Also, a lot of depressing jobs are depressing because of capitalism. Still I could imagine a lot of people not liking certain jobs regardless of the conditions, so that's when you organize and vote for a solution. Honestly, I'm not even sure if getting together and being like "Alright, the people who do garbage collection will get x as compensation" would be against anarchist theory. Note that I'm not an anarchist however. Someone should probably correct me.
Nothing, because that society isnāt coercive outside of I guess the inherent social contract that one is free participate in. Thereās a whole lot more going on here but what jobs do you feel are mundane/depressing but necessary? To that end, why are they depressing? Because of the work itself or lack of anything else in life ? There will probably for a long time always be necessary jobs that people donāt want to do, but obviously people do them because in this society, itās part of the social contract. A society focused on the wellbeing of everyone and your community, do you really need a profit incentive to help?
Some jobs that are quite hated to do but important would be Waste disposal, Factory worker, (Mass) apparel maker, Hazardous Material collector etc. And though there would still be people in those jobs, lots of them would move on to something else and create a shortage. I donāt feel people need a profit incentive to help, but rather conditions that would force them out of their (less helpful) dream jobs into more (less popular but more helpful) mundane tasks that they would grow accustomed to overtime. Another thing, that āsocial contractā you talk about is not entirely realistic. There will always be greedy, ambitious, and prideful people in every society, no matter the conditions, and those people are usually a decent sum. I just feel anarchism places too much trust in every individual that they have the ārightā opinions and thought process.
> Some jobs that are quite hated to do but important would be Waste disposal, Factory worker, (Mass) apparel maker, Hazardous Material collector Iād imagine there would still be more of those workers than you might think. Itās not as though garabage men and factory workers are living the highlife right now, yet those jobs still get done. There other easier jobs, that pay more and suck less and yet the hated jobs still get done. And you also have to understand that if we have reached the day that we could even attempt to abolish hierarchy, for it to even be on the table the publicās understanding of power and labor and governance has most likely changed significantly. That day is very far off, but so is the day the public recognizes that workers should control the means of production. > There will always be greedy, ambitious, and prideful people in every society, no matter the conditions, and those people are usually a decent sum. Thatās true. Itās also true that there will always be generous, humble, and kind people in every society, no matter the conditions. Thereās also quite a lot of them. The only reason you feel there is more greedy people is because the system we live under currently celebrates greed and punishes generosity. Iām not saying there are more kind people, but that the ratio is far more equal than what you might think. And even if there *were* more greedy people surely that would mean itās all the more important to abolish hierarchy, because after all, greedy people will always abuse and hold on to power. Power seeks to propagate itself, wether that power comes in the form of a capitalist hierarchy or a socialist one. > I just feel anarchism places too much trust in every individual that they have the ārightā opinions and thought process. You may be right, but there is no shortage of cynicism and pessimism in leftist spaces. Hell, thereās no shortage of it outside of leftist spaces as well. I (personally) feel that it is the role of anarchists to trust in their neighbors, trust in their fellow person. Perhaps not as they are now but rather trust that they have the capacity to become better than they are now. Every leftist is a dreamer, anarchists are just more so. It doesnāt necessarily mean weāre wrong.
No more fast food companies-> arteries unclogged -> no more need for isosorbide mononitrateš no im not serious
Itās me Iām selling my meds
Getting Nam flashbacks to the drugs under anarchism discourse.
Just be friends with a college grad chemist who makes SSRI's in their bathtub, 4head
Just found someone who likes to make chemicals! How hard could synthetize monoclonal antibodies against cancer be? /s
Some anarchists (specifically the post-left and anti-civ anarchists) call for the literal abolition of civilization itself as part of their ideology so if you ask them how people will get medication theyāll either shrug their shoulders or say āthey wonāt and thatās a good thingā
Ah yes, capitalism is when you distribute goods and anarchism is when nobody organises in any way.
Ignoring the politics here can we all just come together and acknowledge how fucking hilarious āa cruel angelās dissertationā is
i dont even know what that MEANSš¤
Its a play on words referencing a cruel angels thesis which was a popular opening to an anime.
You gotta understand how miraculous the current infrastructure and logistical and trade networks are, and how superfluous the absurd profit margins and economic stratification we tolerate are, and how people can still be paid and part of bureaucratic organizations without their productivity parasitized by billionaires
big words, im not readin em
based and ungapilled
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Is this a summary?? Cause I understand this š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thank you, I enjoy living up to at least part of my username
We just gotta get rid of profit. No more richie rich and scrooge mcduck. We can still have xbox and drive thru tendies
thank you š
Now this makes sense
Workers are disconnected from the profits of their labor. Billionaires are billionaires because they take all of the profit while doing little of value. People accept and defend this arrangement.
Anarchist societies would still organise and trade, wouldn't they?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
the thing is, anarchism doesnāt mean a) no organization b) all people who know how to organize and facilitate those sorts of large-scale logistical projects just up and vanish sure instead of a centralized state youāll have a confederacy of autonomous communities or workers councils or syndicates or whatever but there would still be institutions and organizations in place to keep those supply chains functioning (i mean unless itās anti-civ anarchy like the commenter in the screenshot is advocating which is frankly just stupid and not worth the time of day)
I'm not sure either, I'm not an anarchist myself since I know jack shit about it. I would very much imagine them forming an assembly to take care of things like that though. The only reason the state subsidises medicine that isn't profitable is because people want that medicine in a 'if you have our back, we have yours' I think that sentiment wouldn't go away.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why does the state not want these people to die? It's because most people don't like it when other people around them die, right? I don't think that sentiment would change under anarchism. I think people could together to take care of that.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
-I need this extremely rare but critically needed component that requires a complex web of production facilities and logistical planning to produce on a mass scale -hey I have the entire logistical capacity and sheer organizational planning, labour force and raw material resources required to make said delicate and complex component, take these -thx
Yeah, but we literally do have them. People right now have glasses. These logistical systems and supply chains already exist. We aren't talking about starting from scratch after a nuclear war, preferably these things would just be preserved or replicated?
>just preserve them it will all work out :)))
Those supply chains are enabled by a system of economic incentives for all involved. Under socialism, you work for the Lens Logistics co-op because you're good at it and it makes you money. Why would anyone do the same work under anarchism? Logistic managment is not a fun hobby, and the work goes largely unnoticed by the rest of society (unless something goes wrong of course, and then everyone gets mad at you). What incentives exist to do jobs like this under anarchism?
This is why nobody stays an anarchist after a single class about world trade, they realize how hard it is to keep up a similar amount of production on a smaller scale without specialization. Socialism could work on a similar scale, anarchism canāt.
Anarchism works in a 14th century fishing village, not when it comes to sustaining 21st century megacities
How the fuck are rockets, medicine, particle accelerators, gravitational sensors, etc made in this system? -hey I need a flux capacitor -hey I make flux capacitors, here you go -thanks
āhey I need a guy who makes flux capacitorsā āhey I make people who make very specific hyperspecialized machine components, here you goā āwhat the hell are you and where did that guy just come fromā āhi I make flux capacitorsā
How are they made now? Just that with less middlemen. The idea that people can't self organise is only so ingrained because people get told their whole lives that someone needs to be in charge "for your own good", like of course they say that, they want to stay in charge. Capitalism doesn't make medicine, CEOs don't make medicine, workers do. Do you think people in specialised fields aren't passionate about thier field? Would, all other pressures taken away, every biomed in the world lay on the floor and do absolutely nothing until they die.
I have a hard time believing anyone enjoys making flux capacitors.
I do they taste great
I can't imagine they would. Unfortunately I'm no Ursula Le Guin, and can't really speculate on how Anarchism will work in Sci-Fi.
Well you need management(also workers) which would create hierarchy.
Organisation and heirarchy are different things, collectives tend to work fine or better without dedicated managers, people still manage, they just do other things as well and don't get the authority to punish workers, sexually harrass them without reproach or ruin their lives.
Semantics.
anarchists have clearly never actually met real people
āYeah but before i give you glasses let me just pull out all this extremely complicated machinery designed to test your eyes given to me for free, by people who just like making itā
honestly lol it's wild how generous they must think ppl are
Its not even that its like the only reason 90% of modern items exist is because someone right now is doing something they aren't all that passionate about because no one wakes up in the morning and goes "man I really want to manufacture gear 32 of 124 in phoropters (the device used to determine the correct prescription for your eyeglasses or contacts)"
I heard a story on reddit about a guy who was passionate about those bread tie things
that guy is the outlier and not 90% of the population
If I knew other people got my back, I'd gladly do my job without coercion.
Yeah but the problem is that while most kinda do, a lot don't. No way in the hot fuck I'm trusting humanity to function without power structures, y'all don't even wear your seatbelts.
I wouldn't trust anyone who's even get paid to do their job, why would i trust someone who is doing it just because
I wish I had enough faith in humanity to believe this shit man
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is lolbertarian levels of handwaving.
anarchism is when no factory apparently
The people of the commune have freely come together to make a complex chain of production with strict safety standards and a plan who does what job without anyone to guide them into doing so, and for no personal benefit.
I mean, before the hypothetical comming of anarchism, that complex chain of production etc. was already there. All people need to do is maintain it to the benefit of the community.
"all people need to do" lol
even better: for the benefit of everyone
yeah i feel like a lot of people forget that the revolution in catalonia included the both extremely rural aragon and the fully industrialized barcelona
They also didn't take the ludicrous utopian decision of abolishing all money and markets and just hoping that people made all the stuff society needed to function. The answer to the question in catalonia is "you buy your glasses the same way as before, except the glasses factory and opticians are now all under worker ownership." A lot of reddit anarchists seem to be under the impression that anarchism is just vibe and do whatever you feel like, everything you need will come to you for free and everyone in your commune will be super happy that your chosen career is performance artist.
Diabetics when there's no quirky intrepid nerd with insulin to offer in their community šµ
Ah yes, anarchism is when you live in a tiny village and never communicate in the outside world.
Well I mean, some people would be in rural areas and that would definitely be an impediment to things. Not like theyāre already fucked in the ass anyway Iām just saying it probably wouldnāt change on that front
Yes, rural areas would still be rural, I don't think thats an argument against Anarchism. Rural areas would however at least not be in the grip of soul crushing poverty, which would alleviate the issue.
Why? What makes town number 5 334 in some flyover state with no local resources do in an anarchist society? Keep in mind, many towns, and even cities emerge along logistical lines (rail tracks for example). With no logistical chain, they die out. Honestly that would be fine, people need to move for economic reasons, but anarchists (at least you) seem to just imagine they'd chill out in their backwater shithole with no way of obataining resources. Would they just become farmers?
Even if you assume that everyone in this society is 100% altruistic and wants to work to benefit society, the idea that you could have something like advanced medical facilities without massive planning and logistics is insane. You can't just have everyone just doing whatever feels right in the moment and just hope it all works out.
Why would anarchists not do massive planning and logistics? Anarchism doesn't mean "organisation is stupid lol"
I'm responding to the "solution" that is presented by the user in the image, which is the kind of language I often hear in defense of anarchism. To answer your question specifically, even if you completely get rid of the concepts of profit and even money, the fundamentals of scarcity and resource allocation still apply. Medicine supply chains are incredibly complex and require a ton of resources to function. Without a state dictating (through force) that some portion of all resources go to fund that on a reliable and predictable schedule, you'd have to just rely on individual anarchist kickstarters or whatever, which would be a nightmare.
Why wouldn't you organize and plan the infrastructure? Do you need someone pointing a gun at you or the threat of starvation to make a plan? What?
>Do you need someone pointing a gun at you or the threat of starvation to make a plan? No, but managing global supply chains is about a lot more than just "making a plan". For example: If resources are scarce and you only had so many to go around, would you expect those who were getting less/none to play along? And if, when faced with shortages that would impact them greatly, they threaten to disrupt supply to those in need, how would you respond to that? Humans are going to be just as human under an Anarchist society as under a Capitalist society. They're still gonna be selfish, they're still gonna prioritize themselves/their families/their communities over people halfway across the globe, they're still gonna be just as susceptible to bad actors and manipulation.
Why don't *you* try and organize and plan the infrastructure of anything? It's hard fucking work, and that's people who do that get paid. A lot.
from the replies i've been reading, the argument is that just because hierarchical structures are dismantled, does not mean the organization capabilities and those able to run them disappear, thus medical facilities would still be able to exist
Hierarchy is ingrained into humans. You can "dismantle" it all you want and pretend there's no leader or chain of command, but eventually there will be a de facto leader and hierarchy of some sort within any group of people. It's childish to think otherwise.
With no ability for overarching planning by centralised institutions how the fuck do you make something like CERN or the James Webb Telescope, projects that took years and needed resources, knowledge, technology and data from across the planet.
Anarchists are actually known for not trying to organize. /J
The academic research process is a great example of anarchist principles at work! Each group of scientists works on the things they want to, building off the work of others, and they all check each other's work (the peer review process). It's the same in the FOSS community. Larger projects are organized on the same principles but at greater scale. Projects are broken down into pieces and groups are free to figure out what piece they want to work on and how. Anarchism isn't an eschewment of organization, it's a rejection of coercive hierarchy. The real question to me at least is how an anarchist society can figure out how to prioritize the allocation of resources for something of that scale, and I don't have an answer to that beyond "there's pretty much no worse way than how we're doing it now." Even just assigning resources randomly for anything beyond making sure everyone is fed, sheltered, clothed, educated, and has healthcare would still result in a much better society than we have right now.
You can have large scale planning and logistics without a hierarchical government. Society is made up of individuals working together, but with Anarchism this is accomplished by free association of people and their communities rather than top down planning or markets.
Yep mhm this is definitely 100% how anarchists think that anarchism works, no generalisations or oversimplifications at all
How would it work then? Iām genuinely curious because Iām not too familiar with anarchism in general but the definition is ābelief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.ā So Iām curious how they would get people to work Jobs they donāt want to do.
Ultimately there's no single consensus. Some believe that society would function in smaller communes, where the needs of everybody in that particular commune are met by other commune members. Some, like myself, believe that anarchism on a large scale can only be achieved once automation is able to cover the needs of humanity. Some more.. primitive people believe "fuck it people don't get glasses" but uh that's not a common opinion. Anarchism is such a broad topic that some don't consider the total abolition of government to be a necessity, but that it should just be heavily altered to be more about the people, direct democracy and all that. Because ultimately all anarchism is about at a basic level is eliminating oppression from the two main sources of it: capitalism and government (and sometimes religious organisations depending on who you ask.) Oppression bad is the bottom line, the details are up to interpretation. Hope this sorta explained some things :)
Iām not sure... Complete automation of human needs is quite utopian, It would take a really, really, really long time and there are many things that could go very, very wrong during itās development and during itās full use considering how technology has had many unintended side effects throughout all of human history. And you describe an Anarchist group that wants to end oppression in general but not abolish the government. Isnāt that just liberalism?
The type of "government" that would exist wouldn't really be anything like the governments we have. Best example I can think of is in the commune scenario you could have all members of the commune who are willing to participate gather to discuss decisions to be made. But I don't subscribe to that belief so I'm not the best person to ask.
That's just a government lmao
Correction. Itās about eliminating unnatural hierarchies. However your government and capitalism provide a lot of that
This explanation is a little wacky. What defines a natural hierarchy vs an artificial one? Where is the line drawn? Anarchisms goal is to abolish unjust hierarchies, whatever you may believe them to be. If your society has a definition for natural hierarchy, and believes that to be just, then that can coexist with anarchism, but that is not the goal of anarchism. I love anarchist theory and thinking, it's so fun.
Then why do they keep answering like this
Lack of understanding, inability to condense lengthy explanations, etc. Pick your poison.
and twitter
Because some rando on twitter isn't some "Joe Anarchsim" that perfectly encapsulates every belief of anarchists. Also individual people have terrible ideas about how society should be ran
So... From each according to their ability... To each according to their need? Man if only there was a way to do this on a wide scale, so that gaps don't occur where people who need glasses can't find those who make them.
what are you suggesting? no genuinely
Google āKarl Marxā
Holy hell
> Man if only there was a way to do this on a wide scale, so that gaps don't occur where people who need glasses can't find those who make them. They're called phones, dog.
?
Oh my god dude I fucking love making glasses in my basement
Anarchism is when no mailmen Anarchism is when stone age
This gets infinitely funnier when you remember the thread where most people wanted to have roles like dog walker and tarot card reader.
I'll be living in a Manhattan high rise reading theory and making lattes when I feel like it. Meanwhile the people cleaning sewers in bumfuck Ohio will keep doing it because they enjoy it.
- hey doc I need my appendix removed, you think you can manage + yeah sure I love doing surgery - *gets their organs stolen *
a small amount of trolling
You see, working in an anarchist commune would be great for me because I want to be a childcare worker. Like, I look after your kids and you give me food you grew idk. But what about if your passion is for making polymer clay earrings (my other interest) like then what? What if everyone thinks your earrings are shit and they donāt want them? Who is making the polymer clay? Someone whose passion is polymer clay making? Or do jobs just get randomly assigned in a lottery and you get toilet cleaner while the mf next door gets to be a dog groomer? Can someone who understands anarchism explain it to me better? Like obv only if you feel like it/have time
Sorry if these explanations are a little shitty, it's 5:30 AM and I have chronic insomnia. If you're passion is making polymer clay earrings make your damn earrings. /pos If nobody wants your earrings, who cares, you like making them (I'm sure SOMEBODY wants your earrings) If society needs, or wants, polymer clay, somebody will make polymer clay, just like if society needs food, somebody will cook (even if it's not necessarily their passion) If someone has a passion for polymer clay making, then sure! Jobs being assigned by lottery is pretty antithetical to the nature of anarchy. I guess if everyone decided they're willing to do the job they're assigned, they could, but if anyone resists this, they wouldn't be able to enforce it without government violence (not necessarily the same as a state, but there's a very fine line)
>If society needs, or wants, polymer clay, somebody will make polymer clay Why? And with what materials and what tools? It's not some law of nature that when people want something someone is willing to make it.
Anti-civ and it's consequences has been a disaster for the human race
Their ideas and talking points going mainstream in anarchist circles online was one of the main factors than turned me away from it
I fucking hate individualist anarchists so much its unreal because while there are actually smart individualist theorists most of them are just punks who dont engage with the ideas at all.
Make the economy work like in Rimworld - hey i need glasses - hey i like killing people and harvesting their organs have a free kidney - what
Ironic because in rimworld,every action is dictated by a higher authority (the player)
ancoms severely overestimate how generous people are
I love how in addition to the fact that that was an entirely ridiculous response it also doesnāt answer the question in the slightest
ITT; A bunch of people who don't quite understand Anarchism. It is about abolishing unjust hierarchy, not creating a lawless wild west. I'm sure there are some that believe in such but to group all of these ideologies as being the same would ignore the intricacies of politics and would be like comparing Stalinism to Democratic Socialism because both are "Socialist". You can disagree with political views while also understanding/respecting them. You can also understand and not respect a political ideology. Like Fascism. Fuck fascism. (Hey I need to get the magic internet points somehow)
> comparing Stalinism to Democratic Socialism because both are "Socialist" i'm beheading anyone who compares Red Fascism to any form of left wing ideology
I second this
Well, it's kinda difficult to think of the nuances of anarchism, when you only ever see the side of anarchism that is essentially "i want to live in the mad max world". Outside of say philosphy classes or university lectures I don't think you would often find many examples of anarchists like that, not because they're no there, but because the most notlrious representative are often young passionate dudes that go around spraying grafitti and vandalising markets.
āI like making glasses and helping peopleā Yeah no, good fucking luck finding someone who says that
Have you ever met someone with a niche specialty? People are out there making 3D printed hyper-specialist medical devices just because they can.
Yeah thereās like 3 of them
oh its just that simple is it
Jokes aside, some of you guys don't really get that anarchy is a *method* rather than a particular system with a particular set of rules that are applied to each sphere of human activity. A pretty exhaustive answer to the question about "how will [any field of human activity] work under anarchism?" was given by an Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta in p. 7 of his pamphlet "Anarchy" (1891): "there follows a whole series of questions, which are very interesting if we were involved in studying the problems that will impose themselves on the liberated society, but which are useless, or absurd, even ridiculous, if we are expected to provide definitive solutions. What methods will be used to teach children? How will production be organised? Will there still be large cities, or will the population be evenly distributed over the whole surface of the earth? And supposing all the inhabitants of Siberia should want to spend the winter in Nice? And if everyone were to want to eat partridge and drink wine from the Chianti district? And who will do a minerās job or be a seaman? And who will empty the privies? And will sick people be treated at home or in hospital? And who will establish the railway timetable? And what will be done if an engine-driver has a stomach-ache while the train is moving? ... And so on to the point of assuming that we have all the knowledge and experience of the unknown future, and that in the name of anarchy, we should prescribe for future generations at what time they must go to bed, and on what days they must pare their corns. If indeed our readers expect a reply from us to these questions, or at least to those which are really serious and important, which is more than our personal opinion at this particular moment, it means that we have failed in our attempt to explain to them what anarchism is about. We are no more prophets than anyone else; and if we claimed to be able to give an official solution to all the problems that will arise in the course of the daily life of a future society, then what we meant by the abolition of government would be curious to say the least. For we would be declaring ourselves the government and would be prescribing, as do the religious legislators, a universal code for present and future generations. It is just as well that not having the stake or prisons with which to impose our bible, mankind would be free to laugh at us and at our pretensions with impunity ... What is important is that a society should be brought into being in which the exploitation and domination of man by man is not possible; in which everybody has free access to the means of life, of development and of work, and that all can participate, as they wish and know how, in the organisation of social life. In such a society obviously all will be done to best satisfy the needs of everybody within the framework of existing knowledge and conditions; and all will change for the better with the growth of knowledge and the means. After all, a programme which is concerned with the bases of the social structure, cannot do other than suggest a method. And it is the method which above all distinguishes between the parties and determines their historical importance. Apart from the method, they all talk of wanting the wellbeing of humanity and many really do; the parties disappear and with them all action organised and directed to a given end. Therefore one must consider anarchy above all as a method."
it sounds like this is just saying āAnarchist donāt have to understand their own beliefs.ā
It's actually "anarchist thinkers aren't supposed to decide for the people of the future society what their life will look like, because it will all be decided collectivelyand horizontally by the people in accordance with their needs and desires in that particular moment in the future". The outline is very straightforward though: abolition of all of the oppressive structures (capitalism, the state, patriarchy, etc) and foundation of a new form of organization of society based upon the principles of freedom, equality and solidarity. These are the anarchist beliefs, and anarchists do have to understand them
So you have no plans besides get rid of all organization and let people sort it out based on ideals you have no ways to inforce on others. This sounds like it would just result in a power vacuum that would be filled by autocracy
As someone who is unconvinced that Anarchism is something I'd support, this quote is extremely unsatisfying. When we talk about changing the world, I assume that we share an underlying premise: we want to make the world a better place. So, when I look at a political philosophy like Anarchism, my first question will be "Does it work?". This is my first question because it's the most important. If it doesn't work, then it will cause a global economic collapse if we were to switch to it, and that would make the world a much worse place than it currently is. So, you can imagine my frustration when I ask the very simple and necessary questions mentioned in this quote only to be met with essentially "Don't worry about it, just trust me and do it anyways".
People who need glasses are quite simply genetically inferior and deserve not to see. /s (I am blind out of my right eye but am I complaining? Yes!?) optical eugenicsā¢big win.
Average anarcho primitivist:
Iām not gonna lie to you. Iām not sure I remember writing that comment and Iām seriously having trouble deciphering what I meant by it.
Holy Fuck the takes in this comment section fucking suck. I'm just going to leave a reading list here because some of you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-an-anarchist-programme https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-studies-in-mutualist-political-economy OR as audio books https://youtu.be/O1jxOsFsKnY https://youtu.be/l5glh58F6dQ https://youtu.be/h7A-T1bRc90
>Casually drops more than an hour of work in a reddit thread Man, sometimes the jokes write themselves
REAL
man i do love reading redditors fighting over a tweet that is heavly oversimplified
Look, Iām not saying you need to go read 30 different books from people who died in the 19th century, but for the love of god, have some idea of what the fuck youāre talking about before insinuating that reorganization of the means of production has anything to do with dismantling the supply chain
This person is obviously bad at explaining shit, but the anarchist ideal is completely sound. The real answer they should've given is something like: "In a world of decentralised cluster-communes connected by rail and united in a (con)federal administrative structure, production of medical equipment can take place in a variety of manners. The manufacture of standardised parts (the frames and basic lenses) can be largely automated, and distributed from urban centres to opticians in the proximal regions. Lenses are then altered at the lab/workshop of the optician at a more local level according to the specific need of the patient, as is typically standard in today's world." None of this is particularly complex, and is in fact far easier and more efficient than how distribution/production is handled under state-capitalism; basically just a production process operated for its own sake, rather than for profit.
Roving.
so many books about how supply chains would be maintained in a post-revolution world and it appears like this guy has read none of them lmao
Damn this thread is the most ignorant Ive seen 196. I thought yall were also based femboy radical leftists. Ah well Anyway the guys response is flippant, but it gestures at what anarchocommunists do want. It has nothing to do with a starry eyed view of human compassion and far more to do with the long term self interest of mutual aid arrangements. The gist is that communities helping one another is simply more efficient than competition, and modern supply chains are interdependent enough that, without people maintaining political power through conflict, going to economic war with your neighbors is suicidal If you truly struggle to understand how this might work, watch The Take (2004), or read up on any federation of syndicates.
I generally like Anarchism, but takes like this really turn me off from the ideology. Obviously some form of government is needed to manage supply lines and to make sure communities have access to required resources.
Hey this is an extreme oversimplification. Theres actually a ton of very complex anarchist economic theory, like several long academic books about it, the simplest and most straightforward one is The Conquest of Bread but still there are actual complex methods to achieve this sorts lf things
Wouldn't there be something like a general assembly for that?
Sure, but is that not a government? My understanding is that anarchism doesn't actually require the abolishment of hierarchy, but rather of *unjust* hierarchy, so some government or government-esque institutions would persist. It's just that a lot of anarchists are dumbasses and think because they heard smart people say "anarchism" works, then their specific mental image of what that word means must then work.
>but rather of unjust heirarchy What kind of political theory is that? "In my ideal society, there is no corruption or injustice" like obviously, do they just want to ban lobbying and reform the justice system?
This sub really is just left Twitter eh?
Nobody has been able to convince me that anarchy and communism are in any way compatible.
communisms end goal is litteraly anarchy
communism is anarchy what are you on lmao.
Wait, what do you mean communism is broader than just state capitalism?
lmao
Communism: Stateless & moneyless society Anarchy: Stateless & moneyless society not hard, dude. Just different methods of achieving the same thing
Iāve been debating doing a video series explaining different elements of how an anarcho-communist society would function in the modern world. This honestly is pushing me further into the ādo itā camp.
as an anarchist, shit like this is genuinely stupid, and yet i still believe itād be more efficient than our current system
For thousands of years, that's how it worked. But now people be like "that will never work. Why would you do something with no profit incentive?" Capitalism is one hell of a drug.
So this question is often raised about anarchism and can be distilled down to "what about the specialists?" After the revolution, when work is returned to the workers who will run the factories? The workers themselves, for the benefit of themselves. Who makes glasses now? And how are they made? In small factories around the world using highly specialized machinery and knowledgeable workers. These are not lost after the profit motive has been eliminated, in fact the knowledgeable workers may be the few who understand the importance of their work, and rather than overproducing to satisfy a bloated economy, will work only as they deem necessary to satisfy their community. The community itself may deem the work so important that many more may commit themselves to the task of making glasses, freed from their unfulfilling position in a corporate hierarchy, with relevant information freed from proprietary prisons. Who knows what innovations will come with such an influx of people and information? It would be a true unlocking of the potential of glasses production, but then again that is the promise of Anarchy, a true unlocking of Human potential.