Talk:Anarchism/Archive3
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. CorruptUser 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 capitalism
, 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)
- 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 capitalism
- 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. CorruptUser 19:31, 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)
"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.
- Blah blah blah. ShabiDOO 06:23, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oh now the answer evading know-it-all calls me a sealion? Fuck off. ShabiDOO 05:39, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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. CorruptUser 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. CorruptUser 17:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- ...and fix'd. CorruptUser 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)
- 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)
" 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
- I actually a have academic papers on hand that seem to complicate the narrative regarding Rojava present in this article, but Rojava certainty isn’t anarchist in the strictest sense. The citation in our article seems to be from an opinion piece published in Al Jazeera, which would make me question the reliability somewhat. One for being an opinion piece, but also that Al Jazeera is a state-owned enterprise by the Qatari government that aligns itself with Turkey who are both opposed to the YPG and declare it a terrorist organization. Both nations provide support and ally against Rojava in the current Rojava-Islamist conflict. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)