Are there any anarchists here that would like to discuss their views?

[Something Funny]

To me, anarchism seems like a pipe dream and I don't think it could actually ever work. But I am open to hear opposing opinions. 

[Nilsi]

Quote

“The core of the anarchist tradition, as I understand it, is the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met.” - Noam Chomsky

 

[aurum]

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

“The core of the anarchist tradition, as I understand it, is the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met.” - Noam Chomsky

It's the opposite.

Government has proof of concept. What doesn't have proof of concept is anarchism.

Anarchism has never been shown to work.

[Kairos]

On 04/01/2025 at 3:34 AM, Something Funny said:

To me, anarchism seems like a pipe dream and I don't think it could actually ever work. But I am open to hear opposing opinions. 

Anarchists mostly just care about burning down the Laws and Authority .

They don't care what happens afterwards .(Like Joker)

 

[Basman]

The problem with anarchists is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to oust their sovereign power in favor of a voluntarist community but with none of the ugly violence, gang wars and scarcity that'll come from a deregulated society. Chaos and the freedom to commit rape and murder with no recourse are features of anarchy, not flaws. However, if unregulated violence, which will inevitably happen in the absence of a adjudicating police force and resource scarcity, is a flaw to you, then anarchy isn't for you. And it isn't for the vast majority of people save a couple of demons that would revel in the chaos.

Edited Saturday at 11:26 AM by Basman

[Leo Gura]

When they die God should send anarchists to a land designed exactly according to the anarchists wishes, until they beg for an upgrade to Hell.

Edited Saturday at 11:36 AM by Leo Gura

[nerdspeak]

@Leo Gura I know what you mean, but there are also anarchists who don’t want to abolish the state but want to mostly ignore it and live under the radar, cooperating with a small community of people they trust. Basically a return to pre-industrial craft and agricultural society, when the state was still very weak.

Of course they can’t resist the police or whatever, but they mostly just opt out — don’t use bank credit, create small community schools, object to military service, and try to stay off the grid. The Bruderhofs are one extreme example but there are non-religious people who try living like this too. 

I don’t think this will change or improve society overall, stop imperialist wars, or end capitalism, but I can see how it’s an attractive way to live for a certain kind of personality. 

Edited Saturday at 02:09 PM by nerdspeak

[Basman]

11 hours ago, nerdspeak said:

@Leo Gura I know what you mean, but there are also anarchists who don’t want to abolish the state but want to mostly ignore it and live under the radar, cooperating with a small community of people they trust. Basically a return to pre-industrial craft and agricultural society, when the state was still very weak.

Of course they can’t resist the police or whatever, but they mostly just opt out — don’t use bank credit, create small community schools, object to military service, and try to stay off the grid. The Bruderhofs are one extreme example but there are non-religious people who try living like this too. 

I don’t think this will change or improve society overall, stop imperialist wars, or end capitalism, but I can see how it’s an attractive way to live for a certain kind of personality. 

So basically a soft-anarchism where you are still subject to the reigning sovereign power but act self-sufficient from wider society. Basically a commune at this point.

I see its niche value but scarcity will be a challenge and relative isolation can engender abuse and make it harder to treat problems that would be easily handled by social services, like police, ambulances or the fire department. Large communes like Christiania tend to declind and get overrun by criminals and drug addicts long-term as they lack the structure necessary to maintain stability. Building and maintaining a society is very difficult.

[nerdspeak]

12 hours ago, Basman said:

So basically a soft-anarchism where you are still subject to the reigning sovereign power but act self-sufficient from wider society. Basically a commune at this point.

I see its niche value but scarcity will be a challenge and relative isolation can engender abuse and make it harder to treat problems that would be easily handled by social services, like police, ambulances or the fire department. Large communes like Christiania tend to declind and get overrun by criminals and drug addicts long-term as they lack the structure necessary to maintain stability. Building and maintaining a society is very difficult.

You need high entry costs to deter criminal elements. To join the Bruderhofs, you have to donate everything you own to the community. To become a Hasidic Jew, you have to adopt a whole set of fringe beliefs and an extreme regime of holidays, daily prayer, etc. 

[Schizophonia]

On 18/01/2025 at 3:07 PM, nerdspeak said:

@Leo Gura I know what you mean, but there are also anarchists who don’t want to abolish the state but want to mostly ignore it and live under the radar, cooperating with a small community of people they trust. Basically a return to pre-industrial craft and agricultural society, when the state was still very weak.

 

This is a state.

[Basman]

36 minutes ago, nerdspeak said:

You need high entry costs to deter criminal elements. To join the Bruderhofs, you have to donate everything you own to the community. To become a Hasidic Jew, you have to adopt a whole set of fringe beliefs and an extreme regime of holidays, daily prayer, etc. 

If the solution is creating a cult then I don't see self-sufficient communities being a viable alternative for most people. Besides, that kind of system makes you even more vulnerable for abuse as you become completely dependent on the commune. What recourse do you have if for example a high-ranking and well respected member rapes you? None.

The only viable kind of commune that I can see working is a very soft one which acts more like just a communal living space, still enmeshed with society. People have day jobs, etc. but pool their resources.

[nerdspeak]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

This is a state.

My definition of a state means you have monopoly on legal organized violence within your territory.  The Bruderhofs try to deal with problems internally and avoid calling police, but if the police raid them, they cannot fight the cops off even if they wanted to. 

[Schizophonia]

2 hours ago, nerdspeak said:

My definition of a state means you have monopoly on legal organized violence within your territory.  The Bruderhofs try to deal with problems internally and avoid calling police, but if the police raid them, they cannot fight the cops off even if they wanted to. 

I see.

[Atb210201]

In the best case scenario an ideal utopia there would be no need for a state or government to rule people to make sure justice is done.

But in reality I don't know.

(Although the state becomes corrupt itself by having monopoly and authority and power all the time we haven't seen an uncorrupted state till now at least I haven't)

Edited Sunday at 11:46 PM by Atb210201