https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+color+is+winnie+the+pooh&t=fpas&ia=web

I stated only facts. You can’t even name an anarchist philosopher you’ve read but have strong feelings about the ideology.

if you want to have a valid, useful opinion on something, do the bare minimum of research.

It could also have been used for a game

Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently. Note, anarchy is completely different from the political philosophy of anarchism.

There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, the first anarchists did not use anything resembling that definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Proudhon would be rolling in his grave if he knew people were saying that’s what anarchism was. There’s never been an argument made by anarchist philosophers in support of that, as it would be stupid and obviously terrible.

I should not have to change that i’m an anarchist when I know what the word means, just because people are using it to mean something else, it’s the political philosophers that established it that get to own the term, not colloquial speech.

There’s a million terms where the definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with the academic study of it… this happens all the time in politics. The language may change, but the academic usage of the term is already established, dictionaries stay up to date with language changes, rather than using academic definitions.

Another example: the marxist definition of private property has nothing to do with the current definition, what marx meant when he said private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush.

Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently. Note, anarchy is completely different from the political philosophy of anarchism.

There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, the first anarchists did not use anything resembling that definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Proudhon would be rolling in his grave if he knew people were saying that’s what anarchism was. There’s never been an argument made by anarchist philosophers in support of that, as it would be stupid and obviously terrible.

There’s a million terms where the definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with the academic study of it… this happens all the time in politics. The language may change, but the academic usage of the term is already established, dictionaries stay up to date with language changes, rather than using academic definitions.

Another example: the marxist definition of private property has nothing to do with the current definition, what marx meant when he said private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush.

No you have to show it actually works, the idea of anarchy goes back to ancient Greece, and there has never been a functioning society based on it. Because it doesn’t function.

categorically false, i have shown that it works, it’s just that people with power destroy it, and people with power are good at destroying things.

So it wasn’t anarchist, it was merely one among many groups, it had a traditional government, and it lasted for only 2 years

You’ve already proven you don’t know what anarchism is or how its defined by saying that because it had a government it wasn’t anarchist.

I’ve read philosophical books about forms of government

there’s a reason we use primary sources to analyze things, which books of proudhon, kropotkin, or bakunin have you read?

Communism works so poorly, while Social democracies seem to be just about the best form of government we have achieved yet. This is in combination with my interest in national economy, and psychology from an evolutionary perspective.

Have you ever considered that maybe people with a lot of resources want these things not to happen, and that’s the primary reason they don’t happen, rather than them being fundamentally flawed?

And yes based on my experiences it’s extremely clear that anarchy is not a realistically functional form of governance. Anarchy for bigger societies is ONLY something countries devolve to, for instance after a war, and things ONLY get better when a proper government is restored. And by better I mean not killing each other, and not die of starvation, and the economy working and access to hospitals and education. All the things we normally take for granted in developed societies.

This has nothing in common with any definition of anarchism or any implementation of anarchism by any of the founding philosophers of anarchism, you don’t even know how to define anarchism, those things “devolving into anarchy” has literally nothing to do with anarchist philosophy, and is just a co-opting of the term.

I’ve presented to you the LACK of anarchist societies of scale as an indication it does not work. This means there is no proof it works, and since the idea and principles are clearly not working even in theory in my opinion, the lack of evidence to the contrary mean I see Absolutely no reason to believe it can work.

How do you know that the reason it doesn’t work isn’t because there’s very powerful people who want it to not work? All evidence seems to point to that, considering the ones that work well are always destroyed by outside forces.

You have shown NOTHING to make a plausible argument for anarchy, on the contrary everything I’ve been shown by you and others turn out to be clearly flawed and not support anything that is claimed.

I have, you just are arguing against a strawman, you believe that if there’s a government, it isn’t anarchy, because you don’t know what anarchists actually believe.

Again Anarchy as an idea dates back to ancient Greece for fucks sake, and there is NO society of scale in history to my knowledge that has proven it works even partially. It’s very easy to prove me wrong, because if there is, all you have to do is provide a link to said society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

Many things have been tried for the past 2000 years around the globe, if Anarchy which has been a known theoretical model for all that time actually worked, it should be very widespread by now.

Categorically false, you could’ve made this argument about capitalism during feudalist times, capitalist countries absolutely do dogpile anarchists and communists.

This is so much bullshit. the modern form of capitalism is only 5-600 years old. EVERY society before that cannot have been oppressed by capitalism.

No, but they were then oppressed by feudal lords… before that, there were plenty of anarchists

Capitalism also isn’t a form of governance, it’s a method to facilitate economic activity. Which is why ALL democracies are capitalist. Capitalism may suck hard, but we have nothing to replace it with yet.

No, all democracies are capitalist because capitalists destroy democracies that aren’t. Consider what a disaster for the super-wealthy it would be if socialism succeeded… The reason all communist countries are authoritarian is because only authoritarians can hold onto power when the CIA, the worlds largest military tries to destroy them.

Anarchy is not an alternative to capitalism, on the contrary. Anarchy as an idea was always about pursuing individual interests. The exact opposite of socialism. To facilitate the pursuance of individual interests, capitalism in a democracy is the best model we know of.

You again don’t even know what that means. Which anarchist philosophers did you get these ideas from? Name them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism literally read the first paragraph on wikipedia… this is how unresearched you are. It was literally founded as a socialist ideology…

Create a list of anarchist societies that failed on their own merit, and not because they were destroyed by a capitalist or feudalist overthrow, the zapatistas, for example, would be COMPLETELY FINE if mexico wasn’t trying to destroy them. Nothing about their system of government is the problem they have, it’s external forces, and there are a lot of very powerful external forces that want anarchism and socialism to fail.

I don’t know anything about or care about christiana, so, i’ll just assume you’re right about all that, but it really doesn’t matter. Problems with one society do not mean the ideology is fundamentally flawed, it just means that society was flawed, you’ll have to demonstrate issues with the fundamental ideology that apply to all anarchist societies, not some of them.

“They are usually destroyed by outside forces”

By significant size, I’d say it needs to be at least 50000 people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

again you haven’t even begun to research the topic, but are very confident.

before you say, revolutionary catalonia doesn’t exist anymore, yeah, that’s what happens when fascists destroy you with a military, you’ll note none of the issue was internal politics…

Every single capitalist country immediately dogpiles and tries to destroy any anarchist movement, that doesn’t mean anarchism is fundamentally flawed.

What do you do if that happens in non-anarchist societies?

There still must be a state with the capacity for violence to prevent strongman takeovers. Most descriptions of anarchism generally exclude the existence of a unified state and often exclude any form of non-individual violence.

Yeah, against the state, but not a government, which in anarchist philosophy are two different things.

What state apparatus would be preserved into anarchism that would provide these supports and how would it be funded?

None, but plenty of government apparatuses would exist with funding through taxes…

Additionally, how would we reconcile the lack of a state with the need for apparatuses to oppose individual suppression that are necessarily authoritarian and imbued with violence.

Usually through rotational authority, again, this shows you haven’t read any anarchist philosophy.

Think first about a village of good people with one abusive relationship - that village can perhaps support the spouse in escaping that relationship. Think now about an evangelical or Mormon community with widespread and socially accepted spousal abuse - a solution to that abuse will almost never emerge internally. An outside authority imbued with the power of violence by a large populace is required to make that situation just - and that justice will come against the majority opinion of that locale.

rotational. authority.

Shit like this has happened in the past - most cult raids you’ve heard of were breaking up situations where everyone made a voluntary choice with the assistance of coercion and other disabling factors.

no anarchist philosophers supported cult-like systems.

It took them 30+ years because they needed to privately fund it. I think you may be confusing anarchy with council republics or other devolved and federated forms of governments (like Lenin’s idealized Soviets - not to be confused with the USSR).

Their need to privately fund it only exists in a society that isn’t anarchist. I’m not confusing anarchy, I’ve read my anarchist philosophy, and could talk to you about the beliefs of bakunin, proudhon, and kropotkin, there’s others, but those are the basic ones.

It’s important also to look at the costs of devolution of power. After the first Trump term human rights around reproductive care were devolved to be the decision of the states - that devolution of power resulted in less freedoms for individuals.

Sure, it is important, but I don’t see what that has to do with our discussion.

People like to focus on the “I can do…” freedoms in US political thought but I think some of our most important freedoms are “I can refuse to have … done to me” freedoms - and those two freedoms are always in opposition. Someone wants to not be murdered and someone else wants to murder them - no matter the outcome someone is having their freedom restrained.

yup, that’s true, don’t know what it has to do with anything though.

Literally everything, nothing about either of those places even resemble anything any anarchist philosopher ever said, anarchists aren’t even against government in the first place so the premise is nonsense.

You are arguing against a complete strawman, and seem to know nothing about anarchism.

Anarchism is not against government, or even some heirarchy, it’s about the abolishment of unjust heirarchy.

Pure anarchism? How do you define that, and which philosophers did you read to get to that definition?

Anarchists are not against government, they’re against the state, and these are two different things.

They are also not against rules, there’s no power vacuum because power is held by consensus. I don’t think you’ve ever read an anarchist philosopher, based on this take.

For power to be safely devolved to the people there need to be resilient structures in place to prevent a bad actor from simply wresting control by force.

Why do you think this is incompatible with anarchism?

Also, I think that while it solves societal issues well for the most personal of personal liberties it fails to properly add in protections from the liberties of others that may be imposed on you… i.e. a spouse trying to escape an abusive relationship will find sparse services to support them.

Why can’t they simply vote on such laws being absolute, and hard to change, like we currently do in non-anarchist democracies?

Trains don’t happen in a reasonable time-frame without a strong centralized government. In the UK a coop recently opened a new train line… I think it took them 30+ years.

Why did it take them 30+ years? Why couldn’t an anarchist society simply vote to build a new train line?

What is it then, define it?

Anarchism has nothing to do with “no rules”

Which anarchist philosophers did you read to come to that conclusion?

You can’t have consensus on everything in any society, it’s impossible, so if Anarchy is merely democracy, why than call it anarchy?

1. That’s why you default to a vote in cases where consensus is impossible
2. because it’s about the abolishment of unjust heirarchy, please read the work of proudhon, bakunin, or kropotkin before giving your opinions on anarchism.

next you’ll say “but there are so many laws and so little time for normal people, how can we vote and do consensus on everything?”

to which I will respond, can you point me to a historical example of this being a problem?

You may then say, there’s never been any anarchist societies

https://anarwiki.org/List_of_Anarchist_Societies

https://anarwiki.org/List_of_Anarchist_Societies

Also, you list syndicates as an example, which is an anarchist belief.

In anarchism, usually policing is handled rotationally, like most positions of authority.

Which anarchist philosophers beliefs did you find foolish and young, and why? I’d love a critique!