Sure, it's fun time to time to poke fun and debate with other flavors of Anarcho-notcapitalists. Whether they be socialists, communists, syndicalist's, pacifists, etc., besides the difference of what we all want this world to look like via Anarchy, the end game is the same, is it not?
If you claim to be anarcho-anything, you are in favor of abolishing the State. If you weren't, you would simply be a statist with whatever economic system you opine the State should use.
So as someone who prefers making head-way via critical thinking and logic, arguing with different types of anarchists seems like a never ending merry go-round (even though it is sometimes fun). I personally believe capitalism is the best way forward economically, absent the state, because it allows the market to be the decider of winners and losers. You may disagree, that is fine.
If you prefer a socialist style living, absent a state, by all means, do it up!
If you prefer a communist style living, absent a state, by all means, do it up!
As long as those socialist and communist societies, (absent a state, I feel I need to keep repeating this so there is no confusion), don't use force on those who would prefer not to participate in their system, then I see no issues with it at all.
At the end of the day, we have a growing number of people who see the State for what it is. Even if that large growing group of people differ in what type of system will work best once the State is gone, we all have the same end goal.
Let's work together to make that happen as fast as possible. Once the State is no more, then we can choose to live how we prefer. The socialists can be socialists. The communists can be communists. And the capitalists can be capitalists.
I never thought in my wildest dreams I would be extending an olive branch to certain ideologies I wholeheartedly disagree with. But as an anarcho-anything, we all have one main goal in mind. Let's make that happen in our lifetime.
Great post man! I was really mulling over this point for so long and I am glad that this is more common. I don't have all the answer, nobody does. The best we can do is allow everyone to choose for themselves what they think is best and live it. Ultimately, more people will adopt the most successful path to great success. Complete free choice will be the only way forward.
Your caveat about the ansocs and ancoms really rings true for me as well. I have no problem with them in theory, I just won't join them because I think they are wrong. The fact that people who call themselves ancoms simultaneously advocate for all to be forced to participate in their system shows me that they are just confused tankies.
Exactly. As long as we are all in agreement that the state has got to go, the rest will settle itself out.
Exactly again, let people choose to do what they want, as long as we don't have to follow, it's all good.
I could have marked down your whole reply, as every point is right on the $, but these 2 stood out.
Appreciate your feedback!
I appreciate it man! Great stuff and I will keep an eye out for more of your content. Have a good one.
I have promoted panarchy for the past couple of years for some of these very reasons. I'm not getting any younger, and I would like to get as free as I can before I leave this earth. Refusing to even work with others because your end vision may not line up exactly is really cutting your nose off to spite your face. It took me awhile to realize that, as I was much more rigid ideologically only a few years ago. It wasn't getting me anywhere, though. I've been much more productive and happy since I started connecting and working with others based largely on just the shared vision of a stateless society. You're absolutely right: let's just get there first and then we'll work out the details! #VacateTheState
Thanks so much for your thoughts. You're spot on, we don't have to give up our ideals for theirs. As soon as the State is gone, they can do as they prefer, and we can do what we prefer. In the mean time, working with other abolitionists, regardless their economical preferences afterwards, is our best bet to see it before we're on our backs looking up at the sky.
#vacatethestate is right!
Anarchy as a system is a utpoian ideal that has one basic flaw to ever seeing it realized. (and paradoxically, the same flaw as communism).
It doesn't take into consideration the human being.
And 4% of those human beings are psychopaths, sociopaths, and extreme narcissists ( essentially the people steering the shit ship, we all now find ourselves in).
These are facts that will always stop a utopian anarchy. Power will be sought by some, to exert over others. Force.
Those with power and charisma will exert influence of those humans that like to have leaders, and thus avoid responsibility.
Those humans who want power and have influence over those that want leaders , will use force against others...and so the cycle begins...again.
The rest is a matter of scale.
History says exactly what I laid out to be true, from the Sumerians 2600bc to present day.
Anarchy is a fantastic ideology. Ideologies always fail when they meet real life.
Pragmatism is the way forward - embracing anarchy principles in the smallest, loosest, frame work of self protection (ergo some leadership in some form or other. Pre empire roman republic kind of thing, possibly...)
Conflict is being human. It's being a natural being. Every other animal exhibits it on this planet, why should we be exempt?
my perspective anyway...
I appreciate your perspective, even though I may disagree.
I don't ever recall saying anarchy would lead to utopia. It won't.
In fact, I agree with this premise. There will always be conflict of some sort.
I'll err on the side of non-guaranteed violence and would defend my self and others from those who seek to use force against us.
😂 😂 - thought the guy in the quote box was Micheal Moore! 😂 😂
...good quote, micheal!
fair enough, but reading a lot's the anarchy posts - it does seem to come across a lot like that..
there are a lot of people who think "oh boy, without the state I would be trouble-free" when that really is not true. There are plenty of problems we have as a result of a statist structure (state monopolies, taxation, regulations of private property and commerce etc.), but there are obviously tragedies inherent in life itself. All of that is to say that anyone who thinks changing 1 thing will solve all their problems is dead wrong.
ha, I don't think Michael Moore has said anything, or done anything, to warrant me using him as any positive example....except maybe for the fact that he is pro-socialism yet makes movies and sells them for a profit. Socialist in name, capitalist at heart.
...it did throw me, for a moment! lol
survival of the fittest... just like in nature... wildwild west here we come.. pewpewpew
I see it differently, but I'll save my time arguing with you over it.
If you don't mind me asking, what type of system do you advocate for? If not for one that advocates for voluntary and consensual interactions, instead of force.
doesn't matter to me anymore, just give me either anarchy or a dictatorship but not the soft style of politics we have now in europe
haha, okay. I think I may have interpreted your first reply differently than you meant.
What do you mean by soft style of politics? I'm in the US and may not understand perfectly everything that is happening across the pond.
your politics is everything but soft.. im european... the politics are rigged but everybody pretents to be good for all blabla and the common lies that must give a false goodmensch impression while everything that is happening is the opposite what people really want to happen because of that... and it looks like
pretty damn useless and soft if you ask me if your country is having terrorist attacks more because of the open boarder policy
btw everyone knows getting rid of government completely will result in some nasty events / chaotic situations even those completely fullscale anarchists know that deep inside but then again the only law that is active is survival of the fittest, who will be young strong men and most of all those capabel of defending themselves when assaulting others
I guess I would be described as a full scale anarchist and I disagree with this. Like I said above, this isn't utopia. Bad things will still happen. But the sky falling is the last thing that will happen.
Not sure what community you'll be living in, but if come into my community with that mindset, you won't be walking out.
Are you under the presumption that the only thing holding back normal everyday people from savagely killing their neighbors, are the laws on the books saying murder is illegal?
Police, courts, contracts, things we use every day in today life can still happen absent a State.
I don't not murder people because it's illegal. I don't murder people because it's wrong morally and ethically and I wouldn't want it done to myself.
unless you get on someones lawn in some without permission in some places in the world, the moral in people say not to kill people in general thats true.... but money doesn't care about moral for powerful circumsized family's and for some religions you must kill to be able to rape virgins and people want to do it because of that which is double sick... so you are right but not completely, but from western perspective and standards