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.
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.