Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics.svg

This Politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, (new)

No successful experiment of anarchism?[edit]

Article states... "There has been no successful "experiment" of Anarchists running a large city for an extended period of time, let alone an entire country." Catalonia's physical area is larger than Belgium, and it was run successfully as an anarchist confederation (including allied communist and socialist organizations) for 3 years. This confederation successfully implemented anarchism and communism longer than any supposedly communist-oriented state ever has. It was the largest successful experiment of anarchism in history. Even after it came under attack from fascist forces, it held out longer than the liberal Spanish Republic. The idea that it was not successful is complete nonsense. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to see evidence that Anarchist Catalonia successfully implemented Higher Stage Communism. As for "successful", that would really depend on your definition of the word. Personally, I'd define a "successful" social, political, and economic system as one which not only meets its ideological goals but is also able to survive the pressures of practical existence. As such, it is my view that while Catalonia was one of the better samples, it was not the best. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
This isn't a question of whether my interpretation is 100% right. My interpretation isn't in the article, so that's not the issue here. The question is, is the article correct? I suggest it is not, for reasons I've stated. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
You made claims, defend them or redract them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Catalonia also murdered thousands of people by lynch mobs. It's only "Anarchist" to dumbass college kids who never had to suffer through the reality. Or if they are fully aware of the reality, well, those ones can go play in Reactor 4 of Pripyat. CorSock (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
CNT's Catalonia was not real anarchism... just a headless sindicalism with trotskyist characteristics.
They even forced some kind of law by mobocratic ways.
Honestly, real anarchism is nowadays impossible to achieve, and I'm not sure so called «primitive societies» were that. Nitrato de Chile (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile — Unsigned, by: Nitrato de Chile / talk / contribs
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about here lol. Catalonia was anarcho-syndicalist. Yes, it was proper anarchism. What do you think anarchism even is? Oxyaena Harass 03:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I insist: Anarcho-syndicalism and other similar ideologies aren´t really anarchist. Ask Max Striner, Bob Black or Jason McQuinn about what´s anarchism actually about... Real anarchism is not only about throwing away the capital and the state, but about abolishing ANY hierarchy (even the most justifiable, such as labour division) and, as a consequence, any form of civilization or even organized society. Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Bookchin, Ukraine free-STATE, Catalonia, Rojava, Neo-Zapatistas... were more about a mixture of council communism, libertarian municipalism or just decentralised maoism. Real anarchist were ideologies such as Egoism, Post-Left Anarchism, Insurrectionary Anarchism, Anarcho-nihilism and maybe AnPrims and Deep Ecologists. Nitrato de Chile (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile
No True Scotsman, eh? You throw out these terms without actually knowing what they mean. Oxyaena Harass 11:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, according to you, what do they mean actually? Those real anarchist I´ve mentioned reject the other ideologies as "commodified pseudo-radical ideologies in a saturated marketplace". Nitrato de Chile (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile
You're still engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy. Oxyaena Harass 20:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
And you haven´t explained me what´s the real meaning of Anarchism and how to distinguish its variants from clearly fake anarchisms (such as AnCraps); or even more important: What´s the ultimate variant we have to take? This one? Nitrato de Chile (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile
Oxy, could you explain what anarchism is in say, three sentences (avoiding jargon and vague terms?). ShabiDOO 01:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Oxy. Might you answer that question? ShabiDOO 17:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Anarchism is a political philosophy that is skeptical of authority and rejects coercive hierarchies as harmful and oppressive. You happy? Oxyaena Harass 00:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's just the first sentence on Wikipedia's article, so lazily edited that it still fits the legal definition of plagiarism. Is this the first time you've been reading about anarchism? Corm (brawl) 02:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

No, but it's clearly your first time. Oxyaena Harass 05:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Dunbar's Number[edit]

Why the hell is this shit still on the article? To use the logic of this article, Dunbar's Number should also render liberal democracy impossible, but it clearly doesn't. Oxyaena Harass 16:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Liberal-Democracy also allows for a police force, state coercion, and a hierarchy. Corm (brawl) 17:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Except that coercion is not the argument being used. The argument being used is that there's a Magic Number™ of people you care about deeply. To everyone else you're a complete sociopath. Such an argument would render liberalism, social democracy and social justice impossible ideologies. There are far better arguments and the scientific status of Dunbar's number is dubious anyway Tuxer (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
But it is, it's arguing that beyond this number societies require some form of coercion and hierarchy to function. And if you think people play nice in public just because they are good-natured and not because they won't face consequences for being a jackass, please look up Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Corm (brawl) 20:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Given that Dunbar's Number's credibility as scientific is dubious at best, your argument rings hollow. I took the liberty of deleting the large wall of inane text you decided to pollute this article with. Oxyaena Harass 20:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@Oxyaena@Tuxer There's some similar concepts that are supposed to have better data behind them. @CorruptUser You're over-applying the concept. It isn't about "goodness" or "niceness" but how large a network of social connections can get before it starts suffering from apathy. We actually don't care about everyone in aggregate, more we care about abstracted group entities, and even then only insofar as they relate to our social and emotional connections. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Find a better argument to use than Dunbar's Number, Cory. Better yet: leave this article alone and let someone actually competent in the subject write it. Oxyaena Harass 20:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I see that everyone is just going to act like ideologues and ignore me... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, someone who knows so much about Anarchism they don't know how to even define it. /snark.
@GrammarCommie, I'll concede that point. At the risk of starting an edit war, can I revert Oxy's vandalism? Corm (brawl) 20:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Vandalism my ass, your bullshit addition of shoddy pseudoscience into the article was vandalism. Oxyaena Harass 20:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Shabi asked you a question above. You have a nasty habit of refusing to answer questions. Could you answer it? Corm (brawl) 20:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how many times I have to say this: I have executive dysfunction, answering questions on the spot isn't easy for me. Either way, that still doesn't change the fact you shoved a bunch of pseudoscience and strawmen into an otherwise perfectly fine article. Oxyaena Harass 20:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I've never seen you mention that before. We don't need you to answer it right this second, but we would like an answer at some point. Corm (brawl) 20:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Oxy, while I am EXTREMELY dubious about this executive disfunction that hinders you from answering questions on the spot, not least of all because in the past you have quickly answered questions which you actually had the answer to, and in the past you have also engaged in multiple techniques for avoiding answering simple questions or challenges to what you say...I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this. None the less...that excuse is TOTAL BULLSHIT as I asked you this question several times over the span of months, and in this very talk page I asked you a few days ago to answer the question. All of this has given you AMPLE time to formulate an answer. I, and I am sure other users, are fed up of you telling people what anarchism is NOT but NEVER telling us what it is. I agree, none of this is an excuse for adding speudo science, but that doesn't excuse you dismissing many other valid claims or criticisms of anarchy. I will give you 10 more days to answer the question. That is more than enough time to accommodate your "executive dysfunction". Please, do not yet again avoid this extremely reasonable request. At this point I simply don't believe you have a clear idea what anarchy actually is except for some vague jargon loaded soundbites. Prove me wrong or admit this. ShabiDOO 08:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Anarchism is a method of analysis first and foremost, and to be fair my own ideas and opinions have evolved over the years, so an answer I would've given a year ago isn't the same one I would give now. Anarchism is a method of analysis, anarchy is the ideal, but one in which I don't think I will see in my lifetime. I believe in human emancipation first and foremost, and any method capable of delivering that I support. I oppose coercive hierarchies and the like because they directly inhibit emancipation and enable exploitation and oppression. Oxyaena Harass 10:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
That is even worse than no answer. Cutting away the irrelevant text...your definition is: anarchy is a form of analysis. A political ideology cannot be reduced to an analysis. An analysis, like in say, Marxism, may be an essential part of it that doesn't provide me with any answers to how it is implemented. To show you how absurd your answer is, if someone proposed they replace a university management or a business management with radical new plan X and the answer to "what is plan X" was: Plan X is an analysis. I don't like y and z but I do like a and b. It's hard to imagine anyone going: By god you are right let's do plan X. How does plan X work Oxy? By what mechanism does it resolve problems? By what mechanism are important policies made and changed? How are important things like safety, basic freedoms and the necessities of life ensured? I haven't the slightest idea. Please explain any of this to me. "Let's just try it with no clear plan, a vague goal and hope it all works out" is an extremely foolish thing to do when it comes to organising society. ShabiDOO 11:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm a post-leftist so I'm not a typical anarchist. I don't really care for "society" one way or another, it's a meaningless abstraction I feel no particular loyalty to. All sorts of atrocities have been committed in the name of "society," I consider solidarity to be much more relevant to any forms of social struggle than meaningless abstractions. Oxyaena Harass 12:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay Oxy. So now Anarchy is a form of analysis AND a meaningless abstraction. I asked for "no jargon" and nothing "vague", but that was clearly asking for too much. ShabiDOO 13:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If you need things dumbed down for you, then what the hell are you doing discussing political philosophy? Oxyaena Harass 15:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
And if you can't explain your ideas in simple terms, without jargon or being vague, what the hell are you doing discussing political philosophy?
There isn't a subject on Earth that can't be explained in Layman's terms by someone who actually understands the material. Corm (brawl) 18:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Oxy, don't mask your intellectual fraud with intellectual superiority. You have nothing approaching a clear idea of what Anarchy is, are incapable of expressing anything beyond jargony drivel, employ multiple evasive tactics to answering simple questions and yet lecture others on how they get things wrong. This is the utter definition of a post-modern hack who critiques and types out claims that are phrased in such a way that they cannot be critiqued. Any intellectual statement that is not part of a cogent argument that can be either poetry or garbage. A little poetry can be permitted...garbage should be avoided at all costs. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are unsure about something. ShabiDOO 18:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Random topic break[edit]

Have you read those articles I've send you a few months ago on the Saloon, Cory? I think they make a stronger case than Dunbar's Number against against Anarchism in Large Scale. GeeJayK (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Alright, how about this: You can readd the section with the caveat that Dunbar's Number isn't exactly proven science. Is that a fair compromise? I know I'm being a bit of a dick right now, and I apologize for that, but my criticisms of this section still remain accurate. Oxyaena Harass 20:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@GeeJayK, could you resend them, or better yet put them here? The youtube point from Hayek is right, and another criticism that can be added; we need to expect that everyone adheres to the same laws in an area, something that absolutely can't be done without some form of local government. Corm (brawl) 21:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, the neolibs simping to the neolib god. Oxyaena Harass 21:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So, Cory's just gonna shove his pseudoscientific editorializing back into the article? Oxyaena Harass 21:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly the entire section could do with a complete rework, but I'm too lazy to do anything right now. Oxyaena Harass 21:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The main source was this article by Mancur Olson, political scientist from the University of Maryland. I'm not sure if this link works, if you don't have acess I can get it on JSTOR and upload it for you. GeeJayK (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
No, I'm redoing while adding some criticism of Dunbar. Corm (brawl) 21:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok Oxy, explain how "not everyone is friends with everyone else" somehow makes the claim that social justice projects are impossible? Until then, that should go. Corm (brawl) 21:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
How does it make anarchy impossible? When you figure that out you get your answer. Oxyaena Harass 22:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Why do you answer a question with another question?
It makes Anarchism impossible because we are able to resolve disputes and share with our friends and family, but not the same way with strangers. A small group can do this without any problem if it wants. For large groups we need a government or hierarchical system to resolve disputes, doesn't matter if it's a secular police force, a religious order of priests or even a Mafia-run kleptocracy. When it comes to "social justice" or whatever, we can still do that so long as we have a means of establishing rules and maintaining the peace. Democracy doesn't require that we get along without a government or centralized structure, but Anarchism literally does. Corm (brawl) 22:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Also, this article by Tyler Cowan and this one by Randall Holcombe. GeeJayK (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, the roving bandit one seems vaguely familiar. I think I had mentioned that that was pretty much an on the nose description of Organized Crime? Mafia comes in, and has every incentive to murder every other organized criminal and all of the petty crooks, instead collecting tribute each month, i.e. Taxes, but now that the Mafia had complete control, it'd be better if the shopkeepers kept a little bit more so they could reinvest or the Mafia could provide more services so the shopkeepers made more money they could pay in tribute each month...Corm (brawl) 22:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Two of your sources are paywalled and I can only read the description text so I can't offer much regarding them. The other one starts by describing how Mises, Hayek and Friedman were "defenders of liberty" because nothing says "defending liberty" like (in Mises' case) defending historical fascism while in the case of the other two defend a tyranical bastard in Chile. For not speaking that their economic model is a "how to" guide for oligarchs. Tuxer (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
There are better arguments against anarchism such as logistics and communication, supply chains and the extraction-manufacturing pipeline. Unfortunately all my research has only provide ideology-ladden critique instead of based on something solid. Tuxer (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
You know, an ideology can have more than one criticism of it, right? Feel free to add in the logistics issues or whatever in a new section. Corm (brawl) 23:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
(EC) @Tuxer My opinion on Hayek and Friedman is neutral at best, and in Mises is overall negative, but the mistakes of these authors on dictatorships were not related to Holcombe's article; that's just Tu quoque. Also, just for the record, Mises "support" on Fascism was actually a critique. By that time many people weren't aware of the horrors of fascism for two reasons: 1 the worst part of Fascism only happened 15 years after the release of Liberalism (by that time, Mises, a Jew, had already fled the neutral Switzerland afraid of the nazis) and 2: dictatorships are overall good at hiding their crimes. You can see, in the 1936 Olympics there were just a few complaints about racism even though the Dachau concentration camp was in full swing since 1933, and Charles Chaplin said he would never had released The Great Dictator if he was aware of what was going on in Europe by that time. Indeed, by that time most democracies had fascist parties and many other major liberal authors, like Benedetto CroceWikipedia incurred on this mistake by that time. You can read for yourself here. It's a shitty book, just like most of what the man wrote, but he critized Fascism there. He also supported drugs legalization and open borders on this same book written almost 100 years ago. In Friedman's case, he stated many times that he had no sympathy for the Pinochet's political government, but he believe (he was wrong) that economic freedom would probably lead Chile to political liberty. If you want to read the other articles I can upload them somewhere else. GeeJayK (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not married to the Dunbar's Number itself, but rather that Anarchism has the fatal flaw in that it can't organize at the larger scale. People who are friends can organize without dispute, but beyond this, factions form and it's impossible to organize without a hierarchy and/or coercion of some form. Corm (brawl) 23:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@GeeJayK I was not making a personal attack on you though I disagree with your opinion on Mises as it is obvious that the man saw fascists as useful idiots against communists, which is a position that is not at all critical of fascism. Also how could Pinochet "lead to political liberty" when that thug destroyed Chilean democracy in the first place. Also, yes if you can upload those docs I will give them a look.
Chilean Democracy was already in crisis, which is how Pinochet took over in the first place. Allende was in the middle of nationalizing everything, which pissed off the US for obvious reasons, but one of his major acts was the "land reform" which saw 60% of Chile's farmland "redistributed". While we don't know what would've been, it's not an extreme claim to say that Pinochet prevented things from being oh so much worse, and I say this fully aware that Pinochet was a sick fucker who trained dogs to rape people. Corm (brawl) 15:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
So what you're saying is attempting to address land inequality is a bad thing, now? Smfh. Oxyaena Harass 15:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Considering that "land reform" almost always results in mass deaths and famines, yes, it usually is a Very Bad Thing. See Soviet Ukraine, Great Leap Forward, Zimbabwe, etc. Corm (brawl) 15:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Then what would you propose we do to address systemic inequities in land ownership? Oxyaena Harass 15:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Progressive income and inheritance taxes. Corm (brawl) 16:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
You just name-dropped two things, you didn't propose any actual concrete policies. The way I see it, we should treat land inequity like we do monopolies, or at least should treat monopolies. Break them up and distribute them more equitably. Material conditions are different everywhere, and there is no universal solution to address issues like these. With that in mind, the ideal for me is what I previously suggested. Oxyaena Harass 16:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Those are the policies. Progressive taxes bias the market towards smaller firms by creating an artificial inefficiency of scale. For example, you could exempt the first $40,000 in farm income from tax, then tax all income above that at 40%. If 100 small farmers could earn $50k for each of their personal 40 acre plots but due to efficiencies of scale a mega-farmer would earn $60k per plot, the result is that the small farms would earn $46k per plot after tax, but the mega-farm would only earn $36k per plot. This would make it more attractive for a Mom&Pop to own a farm than for a mega-corp. It's better to prevent the monopoly from forming than to break it up after the fact.
Inheritance taxes function as a bit of a reset every few decades, but the real problem is that the megacorps don't die. Sure, the shareholders themselves die off and then the heirs have to sell some of the shares to the public, but the megacorp itself keeps growing and merging until the entire industry is just a single company, and then the public gets screwed even if the shares change hands every so often. Again, better to use the tax system to bias against monopolization in the first place. Corm (brawl) 16:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
And what about their workers? They're the ones doing the actual heavy lifting, surely they should get a say in how things are run? Or is economic democracyWikipedia too socialist for your liking? Oxyaena Harass 05:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Tuxer I understood that you weren't attacking me. If anything, I'm sorry if my post was too aggressive, it wasn't my intention. First, about Friedman, as I said, I believe he was wrong about (although, as our own article on him mentions, Chile did became a democracy after 20 years of Pinochet, while Cuba is still a dictatorship after 60 years). Point is, people tend to think that he believe dictatorships were ok as long as they were capitalistic dictatoships. It's not what he believed. Hayek's mistake was far more complex and boring so I won't elaborate. Still regarding Mises' mistake on the Fascists, if you read the whole chapter you'll see that he disagrees with them. Far less than what we do today, it's true. But also far more than the average right-winger by that time (although Mises considered himself too progressive on the social aspects to be a right-winger he was one). Just like pretty much most of the left agreed with what the Comintern said by that time but now we all hate tankies that was the staple position even among classical liberals. I repeat, they were downright wrong. Mises was wrong and I don't think much of him as a political thinker (and indeed, even as an economist). But his views were advanced by that time at this point. GeeJayK (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Missing something[edit]

given that so much time and attention is given over to what a supposed anarchist society might look like or how it would deal with one issue or another, i kinda feel we neglect the issue of how an anarchist society might actually come about. i know we can look at some examples from the past, or quasi anarchistic society in existence today, but they all seemed to have been formed through exceptional circumstances ie war, or involve communities were in abject poverty to begin with. arguments over the final form of an anarchist utopia seem to be arguing over the merits of a fantasy.

the problem i see is that i cannot see how a relatively wealthy society, such as the majority of western democracies, goes from that to a anarchist society. the most i ever seem to hear as a response is to 'bring down the existing system' but then no more than that, as if an anarchist society would naturally arise. it could, i suppose, if everyone agreed to give that ago, but i'd imagine it would be case of hoping that whoever takes charge in the resulting power vacuum isnt just a power hungry psychopath whose supporters have the most guns. (in the us, with all the right wing militias and gun nuts around, i betting on whatever springs up after bringing down the system wont be the utopia anarchists would be hoping for.) for an anarchist society to emerge it would require action and organisation of a kind anarchists wish to do away with.

i dont discount anarchism outright, just that it has limits to its scale to be practical, and only really for the dirt poor or otherwise disadvantaged. everyone else it would represent a worsening of their quality of life. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

anything that relies on some kind of revolution, armed or otherwise, relies on bringing down 'the system', but cannot give me the incremental steps of getting from a to b, is a fantasy that would not look remotely like what was promised. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Naturally it is a fantasy. Any plan that leads to a utopia with vague goals and no plan to deal with inevitable problems is doomed to fail (I understand the plan you make is unlikely to resemble any outcome...none the less without a semblance of how it actually works invites completely unpredictable chaos). Attempts at anarchy have all come either from war/upheaval or very very small scale experiments (which turn out to be weary places with dubious safety, security or conflict resolution mechanisms that are remotely fair). Convincing people to risk their security and very life for a transition to a society without an explanation of how it will feasibly work is, as you said, pure fantasy. It's one thing for a person to say: the goal is x and we will figure it out as we go. That is honest, though obviously misguided and stupid. However, with many anarchists, like Oxy, I frequently see the "that's not what anarchism is" which is followed up with a non-explanation of what it is, an unwillingness to admit there isn't an actual plan, yet a conviction it will work out and be a better system than what we have now. I would seriously consider an anarchist political philosophy if someone could tell me how it works without evasive jargony explanations. In such a case, it seems that, without war, anarchy would be imposed on people, and it is hard to find many cases throughout history of political systems being imposed on a nation working out well or would have worked better through a peaceful transition. ShabiDOO 19:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Show me a revolutionary that's put before a firing squad, and I'll show you someone who genuinely believed they'd be the one aiming the gun. Corm (brawl) 19:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Libertarianism was once a philosophy that was in some ways aligned with anarchism, but the laissez-faire capitalism hijacked American style "libertarianism" is probably the only philosophy in the West that is even close to "anarchist" with any following or political power. In theory, libertarianism is hands off, minimal government (though of course not completely erased). In practice, however, I've found that it is more of a "I've got mine, so fuck you" philosophy for too many who preach it. For those type (particularly those types with any power), this can come with illiberal thoughts to protect the "mine" that they've "got". Peter Thiel's views on women's suffrage being a classic example here. My suspicion is that, if fully realized, libertarianism would actually end up looking like authoritarian capitalismWikipedia, as the "haves" will be happy to use the so-called "limited government" they supposedly believe in to shut out the "have nots". You can also look at other no-law libertarian shitshows like Bitcoin or the failures of the libertarian paradise attempts and apply some of the lessons there to problems with anarchy, too, in my opinion. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "with dubious systems of conflict resolution": Conflict resolution among peaceful societies. @Shabidoo. Oxyaena Harass 00:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I did a search of that document and the word anarchy or anarchist didn't come up. So I didn't bother reading it unless you can tell me why I would read an article that would explain how conflict resolution works in an anarchistic society that doesn't even use the term in it. ShabiDOO 05:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
What do you think "anarchistic society" even means? We have genuine examples of human societies resolving conflicts peacefully without resorting to coercive measures, it's painfully obvious here you have no clue what you're fucking talking about. Why is it that people here on RW don't take the time to critically examine their own assumptions about anarchism? Just because it's a system that hasn't been widely tried yet? The same could've been said about republican democracy back in feudal times. After all, how would anything get done without kings and nobles telling the dirty peasants what to do? Get a fucking clue, Shab. Oxyaena Harass 05:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Oxy, I don't have a single fucking shred of respect for someone like you who cannot spell out what something is but then berates others for not "getting it". I asked for a three sentence definition about what it is and how it works without jargon. "A form of analysis" or a badly rephrased and vague repetition of a wikipedia article is not the above. If you cannot deliver such a simple request...then I don't understand how you got onto your bloody high horse. YOU have no fucking clue what you are talking about and it is obvious to everyone. ShabiDOO 05:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I already told you, asswipe, I have fucking executive dysfunction, and I really don't want to deal with sealioning shitheads like yourself. You asked me "what is anarchism" when I pointed out that Nitrato was committing the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Fuck off with your sealioning bullshit, man. Hell, I've answered this question multiple times in the past. I really don't feel like repeating myself, especially with sealions like yourself and Cory. Oxyaena Harass 05:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh now the answer evading know-it-all calls me a sealion? Fuck off. ShabiDOO 05:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I directly gave you examples of human societies that resolve conflicts without resorting to coercive violence, and you handwaved them away without even looking at the examples listed, and you tell me I'm the one with the problem? Cute. Oxyaena Harass 06:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm ignoring your nonsense until you answer my question according to the very reasonable conditions I gave. If your executive disorder requires more time to actually answer it, that is fine. I can wait. Until then, anything else you say is just babel. I will read the words but it will be processed as blah blah blah. ShabiDOO 06:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
So you ignore direct evidence just because I won't answer your arbitrary task even though I have a perfectly valid explanation? You're a real fucking wanker, you know that? Oh, and btw, Cory STILL has yet to remove the garbage pseudoscience he added into the article. You asked for examples of human societies that resolve conflicts without coercive violence, and I fucking gave them to you. The fact that you're deliberately ignoring my argument suggests this is personal and not based on the subject matter at hand. Oxyaena Harass 06:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Blah blah blah. ShabiDOO 06:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point for me. Oxyaena Harass 06:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Your points seem to be fair. However, I didn´t find any explicit reference to anarchism either, just a "turning the other cheek" attitude towards some human societies which make them weak against any hostile neighbouhood or invasor and allows to surge gradually any type of hierarchy. Other groups labelled as "anarchism" (such as Paris Commune, Catalonia ´36, Rojava and Neo-Zapatistas) actually enforce(d) some kind of law by volunteer guards at best (or mobocracies at worst). Moreover, there´s not such a thing as society without violent coercion (it needn´t have to be physical): Just by the cultural and moral superstructure, any individual is forced to follow some way of behaviour, due to phsycological coercion, something necesary to keep any society integrated (even a tribal one). For example, that pasiveness attitude had to be enforced via (informal) education. Almost like that "Disciplinary society" by Foucault.

BTW, I´ve heard from many anarchist about the abolition of "unjust" hierarchies being a central pivot in the ideology. However, what hierarchies are actually justifiable? WHO decides wether a hierarchy can be kept? Remember that any human group need a minimum of (non-material) hierarchy and (non-physical) coercion in order to not collapse. Even so-called primitive societies perceieved authority from elders and their experience.

...unless you were talking about Insurrectionary Anarchism (for me, the only real form of anarchist ideology). Nitrato de Chile (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile

Anarcho-Primitivism needs more information[edit]

So I´ve made an edit of this page with some links. However, I don´t know how to follow some aspects of the current format of RW, so I beg somebody to order it in a correct way. And I insist: Derrick Jensen needs his own page Nitrato de Chile (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile

Rolling back?[edit]

@Tuxer I'm unsure why you reverted my rollback. I don't want to get into an edit war so I'm bringing it up here. To me, it was an easy decision to roll it back as it was clearly ideologically motivated, created a broken link, and had multiple grammar and spelling errors. Am I missing a reason why it should stay on the page? armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 15:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of Living Persons. Don't write anything that could potentially be libel unless you have very good citations about someone. Corm (brawl) 16:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I see. Mine was just a rollback, but that definitely makes sense. Still not a huge fan of where the page is at now in that section, so maybe just remove that paragraph entirely? armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 16:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Paragraph is clunky and needs rework. Point is that AnPrim requires billions of people to die, and that's even if it's workable in practice or stable after nearly everyone is gone. That's not even getting into the issue of, well, we already know what happens when a primitive society meets a more technologically advanced society. Corm (brawl) 17:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
...and fix'd. Corm (brawl) 17:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, wasn't quite sure how to rework it. Looking good! armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 18:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

" The reality is that the Kurds' goal is Kurdistan"[edit]

thoughts: I am not here to argue that the Rojava project was anarchist (it was as much Bookchinism, as it was Maoist from my understanding.) There are many different Kurds, with many different stated goals. This section was specifically about Rojava tho. The people involved with the Rojava experiment were pretty explicit that they were attempting to live Abdualla Ocalan's system of Democratic Confederalism (it's outlined in a pretty hefty pamphlet, or super tiny book, that can easly be found on the internet for free if you wanna give it a read) clearly says they have moved on from the Maoist thrid world national liberation struggle (ie NOT trying to create an independent Kurdistan.) And believe that Democratic Confederalism could have spread from Rojava to Syria and Turkey, then the Middle East, the EU, and indeed to globe.

But then again people will say a lot of things to get support for what they really want, and may even be lying to themselves, so who knows. I just think that sentence was a little wack, and uninformed, but what do I know?

this is the only edit I am probably ever going to attempt to make to a wiki (talk page because, i really can't be bothered to be draged into anykind of potential edit war on a main page) all five of you infested in this subject, have at it yeah?, so meh, no user name. — Unsigned, by: 2600:1700:4e00:8590:7da9:925d:722b:b6e1 / talk