Regardless of semantics, it would “work” if it’s what 100% of the population supported and worked towards. Obviously that’s not the case in reality, but the same applies to anarchism. Anarchism (edit: and fascism, just to be clear) are uniquely vulnerable to bad actors when the reality sets in that not everyone is going to be well intentioned.
Also from a geo-political perspective, anarchism would be exceptionally easy for neighbors with bad intentions (think Russia) to take advantage of.
I don’t understand why people think this is the case, anarchy doesn’t mean we let shit people do shit things. We still fight back, we still kick them out of our communities and we still protect one another. Real world anarchy has a pretty strong history of fighting back and keeping itself safe, the Zapatista still exist, the Spanish anarchists basically just lost a war and that’s not exactly a problem unique to anarchism…
It’s no more vulnerable than other societal structures, it’s significantly less so given the way that corruption is much much hard to get away with given that individual people can’t hold positions of power, only positions of responsibility which may be taken from them at any moment.
Spanish anarchists lost the war because they were disorganized and vulnerable to external pressure (competing political parties like the Communists at the time) which was half my original point.
Zapatistas exist in the single poorest state in Mexico, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the “ideal government form” as many here apparently believe.
I’m having too good of a day to argue about this so believe what you will, it’s no skin off my back. But I’ll say that being poor is not the same thing as being crushed by external forces, I never mentioned anything about anarchy making people rich. Anyway, wealth is literally a meaningless metric to those of us who don’t want or believe in money.
The case of the Spanish collectives is a lot more nuanced than that. Regardless, acting as if being disorganised is a result of anarchism is just silly.
Like I said believe what you want but again, there’s no reason anarchy is any less susceptible to external forces than anything else. It’s just about structuring society and giving a shit about people.
Lol the original point in the top level comment, which I was agreeing with, was that this idealized version of anarchism requires everyone to be on the same page, and then you go off on a weird tangent about how true believers don’t want money to be happy? That just proves the original point. Maybe you and your friends don’t care about money, but the vast majority of the world does, and that’s not changing anytime soon. Which explains exactly why anarchism is not a viable government form in the modern world - most people don’t share your ethics, which are required for that government form to function.
Regardless of semantics, it would “work” if it’s what 100% of the population supported and worked towards. Obviously that’s not the case in reality, but the same applies to anarchism. Anarchism (edit: and fascism, just to be clear) are uniquely vulnerable to bad actors when the reality sets in that not everyone is going to be well intentioned.
Also from a geo-political perspective, anarchism would be exceptionally easy for neighbors with bad intentions (think Russia) to take advantage of.
I don’t understand why people think this is the case, anarchy doesn’t mean we let shit people do shit things. We still fight back, we still kick them out of our communities and we still protect one another. Real world anarchy has a pretty strong history of fighting back and keeping itself safe, the Zapatista still exist, the Spanish anarchists basically just lost a war and that’s not exactly a problem unique to anarchism…
It’s no more vulnerable than other societal structures, it’s significantly less so given the way that corruption is much much hard to get away with given that individual people can’t hold positions of power, only positions of responsibility which may be taken from them at any moment.
It’s not it “would work if,” it does work.
Spanish anarchists lost the war because they were disorganized and vulnerable to external pressure (competing political parties like the Communists at the time) which was half my original point.
Zapatistas exist in the single poorest state in Mexico, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the “ideal government form” as many here apparently believe.
I’m having too good of a day to argue about this so believe what you will, it’s no skin off my back. But I’ll say that being poor is not the same thing as being crushed by external forces, I never mentioned anything about anarchy making people rich. Anyway, wealth is literally a meaningless metric to those of us who don’t want or believe in money.
The case of the Spanish collectives is a lot more nuanced than that. Regardless, acting as if being disorganised is a result of anarchism is just silly.
Like I said believe what you want but again, there’s no reason anarchy is any less susceptible to external forces than anything else. It’s just about structuring society and giving a shit about people.
Lol the original point in the top level comment, which I was agreeing with, was that this idealized version of anarchism requires everyone to be on the same page, and then you go off on a weird tangent about how true believers don’t want money to be happy? That just proves the original point. Maybe you and your friends don’t care about money, but the vast majority of the world does, and that’s not changing anytime soon. Which explains exactly why anarchism is not a viable government form in the modern world - most people don’t share your ethics, which are required for that government form to function.