But that’s how we started. How are you gonna stop the people that then gather and creates groups with leaders that ravage the land like the golden horde?
By meeting with them regularly as their neighbor and getting to know their needs through continuous dialog and figuring out how to make you and them materially reliant on one another in order to create an organic, interdependent, cooperative community in which the wants and needs of individuals become aligned.
This has literally always been the only way to dependably avoid your scenario under any system, regardless of institutional obfuscations to the contrary. Anarchism really just strips away those obfuscations and thrusts it’s participants directly into mutual power with one another.
But if we overthrow the government without offering something to take its place, what’s to stop something really nasty from filling the power vacuum?
That’s the mantra of those who are working up the nerve to be really nasty themselves. The really ruthless usually tell you that they are there to protect you from other ruthless people; often, they are telling themselves the same thing.
If we were powerful enough to overthrow one government, we would be powerful enough to prevent the ascendance of another, provided we weren’t tricked into rallying around some new authority. What should take the place of the government is not another formalized power structure, but cooperative relationships that can meet our needs while keeping new would-be rulers at bay.
From the vantage point of the present, no one can imagine creating a stateless society, though many of the problems we face will not be solved any other way. In the meantime, we can at least open spaces and times and relations outside the control of the authorities.
That entire FAQ is a hodge podge of logical fallacies; apparently written by someone who’s read lots of 20th century history books but has zero understanding of real life civics.
That’s the mantra of those who are working up the nerve to be really nasty themselves.
Calling everyone who disagrees closet-oppressors is an ad hominim not an argument.
If we were powerful enough to overthrow one government, we would be powerful enough to prevent the ascendance of another,
That’s a hasty generalization that US interventions abroad patently disproves.
not another formalized power structure, but cooperative relationships that can meet our needs while keeping new would-be rulers at bay.
That’s just reinventing the wheel. Relationships need to be formalized in order to consistently deliver at scale. Likewise power structures inherently exist because of the would-be rulers.
no one can imagine creating a stateless society, though many of the problems we face will not be solved any other way.
This is an appeal to ignorance on multiple levels.
It would be hard for a feudal peasant or lord to envision a capitalist society.
And even harder, some might say impossible, for either of us to know what someone 500 years ago was thinking or could comprehend. The argument appeals to our ignorance as evidence of it’s merit.
TLDR “liberalism”. We need educate the working class and use democracy to enforce regulation on the economy and transparency in our government. Scarcity is the driving force behind capitalism. We need to deal with that first. Violent revolution will only traumatize society further from the culture of socialism.
It’s also a terrible argument since hunter gatherer societies largely avoided conflict due to humans being so sparse. It was simply much, much, easier to move on than to fight prior to the agricultural revolution.
Meanwhile we have archeological evidence of subsistence marauders from the stone age. They found a village that lacked contemporary agriculture. It also had a mass grave of victims who had been killed violently but their deaths spanned over a decade.
But that’s how we started. How are you gonna stop the people that then gather and creates groups with leaders that ravage the land like the golden horde?
By meeting with them regularly as their neighbor and getting to know their needs through continuous dialog and figuring out how to make you and them materially reliant on one another in order to create an organic, interdependent, cooperative community in which the wants and needs of individuals become aligned.
This has literally always been the only way to dependably avoid your scenario under any system, regardless of institutional obfuscations to the contrary. Anarchism really just strips away those obfuscations and thrusts it’s participants directly into mutual power with one another.
I recommend you read this: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/crimethinc-frequently-asked-questions-about-anarchism#toc7
More specifically,
That entire FAQ is a hodge podge of logical fallacies; apparently written by someone who’s read lots of 20th century history books but has zero understanding of real life civics.
Calling everyone who disagrees closet-oppressors is an ad hominim not an argument.
That’s a hasty generalization that US interventions abroad patently disproves.
That’s just reinventing the wheel. Relationships need to be formalized in order to consistently deliver at scale. Likewise power structures inherently exist because of the would-be rulers.
This is an appeal to ignorance on multiple levels.
Also: You are assuming that just because the text contains a fallacy, it is incorrect or worthless. That is a fallacy in itself.
Assumptions are not logical fallacies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
Assuming that the text is wrong because it’s fallacious is a fallacy.
Except I didn’t just point out the fallacies. So you’re wrong.
How does it appeal to ignorance? It would be hard for a feudal peasant or lord to envision a capitalist society.
And even harder, some might say impossible, for either of us to know what someone 500 years ago was thinking or could comprehend. The argument appeals to our ignorance as evidence of it’s merit.
You should look into Capitalist Realism (people won’t read the book, so here’s the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism#HeroSection). It’s easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism.
Please understand. I can envision a path beyond capitalism. It’s the vast majority of leftists/libertarian housecats who fail to inspire confidence.
Out of interest, what is that path?
TLDR “liberalism”. We need educate the working class and use democracy to enforce regulation on the economy and transparency in our government. Scarcity is the driving force behind capitalism. We need to deal with that first. Violent revolution will only traumatize society further from the culture of socialism.
I’m not convinced. What if the government was just weak at the time
It’s also a terrible argument since hunter gatherer societies largely avoided conflict due to humans being so sparse. It was simply much, much, easier to move on than to fight prior to the agricultural revolution.
Meanwhile we have archeological evidence of subsistence marauders from the stone age. They found a village that lacked contemporary agriculture. It also had a mass grave of victims who had been killed violently but their deaths spanned over a decade.