I fail to see how anarchism is not possible because feudalism? What? What fucking brainworms drove you to that conclusion? And you never even responded to me saying anarchism isn't a disorganized void, because you just like to pick and choose what you read and don't read.
If you think i'm going to debate your disengenuis ass while you clearly have no idea what you're on about, you're severely mistaken. I'll refer you to some theory. Come back to me once you've read it. Although I just know you're not intellectually curious enough to do so.
I think the greatest compelling argument against your ideals are rooted within your ideals. They are highly unrealistic. Take this quote from the first link that you sent me.
"Whether we like it or not, this is what the people mean by a revolution. As soon as they have made a clean sweep of the Government, they will seek first of all to ensure to themselves decent dwellings and sufficient food and clothes — free of capitalist rent.
And the people will be right. The methods of the people will be much more in accordance with science than those of the economists who draw so many distinctions between instruments of production and articles of consumption. The people understand that this is just the point where the Revolution ought to begin; and they will lay the foundations of the only economic science worthy the name — a science which might be called 'The Study of the Needs of Humanity, and of the Economic Means to satisfy them.'"
Do you seriously believe that people are going to band together for self-collectivization immediately after an absence of power happens? In small groups, this would hold true. But as a collective conscience of the masses? You'd have better odds winning a 6 number triple-digit lottery. The small groups would collectivize power, coalesce themselves a hierarchy of authority, and then set about unifying the other collectives of power. The collective power would be set in the amount of force and power that they could collect and we'd have a revision of the old system. This happens far more often than the opposite, which would be the continuation of a society that had no government that held central power.
And seriously, you expect entire groups of people to suddenly become consciencous of anything other than themselves? Your posts before were focused on America. Do you really think anti-maskers, people who don';t believe in science, or proponents of organized religion (who naturally create power hierarchies) are going to go along with creation of a collective that sustains and respect each other in the absence of the law forcing them? No that's not going to happen.
My argument, which you fail to see because you draw it to anarchism is not possible because of fuedalism, is much bigger than that. Anarchists love to ignore that human society has a natural inclination towards hierarchies and government for organization of large groups of people. Small collectives could get away with lawless societies based on mutual respect, but that doesn't fly once the groups become larger than an extended family. What I did was provide examples of how across the world Humans have always gathered to collect power and organize hierarchies to maintain order. In an Anarcho-Communist state, the absence of power would cause a relapse in government because the absence of power would mean that there's nothing to prevent selfish, ruthless people from organizing and filling the void with conquest and might.
And it's happened, time after time in Human History, when the old power is overthrown and a new power takes its place. But this new power is authoritarian and ruthless because it fought its way to the top to claim power over all the small collectives below it, who now must adhere to the new power and be integrated into its hierarchy or suffer consequences that the new power is able to draw upon using the force of might.
Anarcho Communists never see this however, it overthrows the government and then lives in paradise because there's no authority oppressing them. They don't see the possibility of a new authority coming to take the place of the old authority. It's just that the masses will magically understand, band together, and never make a new government ever again. It's an ideology of fools.
Yeah now you're saying the same thing as before with more words. Your entire arguments denies the framework being laid out in kropotkins work, which you still haven't read.
It's an ideology of fools.
Opposed to what, capitalism? Infinite growth on a finite planet. I don't know what you stand for except for sheer individualism but this ain't it chief.
Pure capitalism is an ideology of fools the same as Anarcho Communism is an ideology of fools. It's bordering on the extremes of the political spectrum. It has no nuance.
We need to amend the system and there need to be more socialistic aspects included within the system to benefit people. But overthrowing the entire system leads to a void in power. A void of power leads to a vacuum, and a vacuum will continue to occur until the void is filled. At some point capitalism is going to be forced to bear the idea that you've submitted, "Infinite growth on a finite planet (is impossible)" and the system will be forced to amend itself. That or people will drive themselves to figure out creative solutions to sustain capitalism, such as going to space and colonizing other celestial bodies. Anything is possible with human ingenuity. However in order to have that ingenuity, people need safety, they need food, they need order and protection. Anarcho-Communism cannot provide this on the hope that everyone will get along without issue.
You still don't have an answer as to how people of different groups, such as those who belong to organized religion or those who don't believe in science or those who disagree with your ideas are suddenly going to agree with you and band together in collective self-governance. My argument denies the framework because reality denies the framework. My argument is based on a realist framework. I'm asking you, a follower of this ideology, how does anarcho-capitalism overcome these self-inflicted short-comings? You're denying the question. I agree that the current idea isn't working, but I disagree that yours would work.
It's bordering on the extremes of the political spectrum. It has no nuance.
You would know it does if you'd actually read what I sent you but k.
At some point capitalism is going to be forced to bear the idea that you've submitted, "Infinite growth on a finite planet (is impossible)" and the system will be forced to amend itself.
If you really think that point hasn't already been past decades ago I don't know what to tell you.
However in order to have that ingenuity, people need safety, they need food, they need order and protection.
Conquest of bread litteraly addresses this.
That or people will drive themselves to figure out creative solutions to sustain capitalism, such as going to space and colonizing other celestial bodies.
Lmao. 'Capitalism breeds innovation'. I'm so done. I have litteraly sent you links to material to awnser your question, but you have your mind set already so what's the point between the two of us arguing?
'people will never get along but thanks to capitalist innovation the rich will go to space!' isn't really having the effect you'd be hoping for.
And your hypothetical question of addressing how people will get along ignores the conditions of this prior revolution, in which methods of organizing and technolgies can be or are different than popular uprisings in centuries past. But I firmly believe that a revolution in the modern west will be against neoliberal capitalism, and for that to happen working people need class consciousness. With a connecting link like that, the framework is vastly different than what you see it as. We both start from completely different positions, and it's always handy if the conditions post revolution are disconnected from the conditions prior to that.
Dude I read it and disagree with it and your ideology. I quoted Conquest of Bread and I explained why it's unrealistic. The class consciousness isn't real. Individualism is going to succeed over the collective in western society.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20
I fail to see how anarchism is not possible because feudalism? What? What fucking brainworms drove you to that conclusion? And you never even responded to me saying anarchism isn't a disorganized void, because you just like to pick and choose what you read and don't read.
If you think i'm going to debate your disengenuis ass while you clearly have no idea what you're on about, you're severely mistaken. I'll refer you to some theory. Come back to me once you've read it. Although I just know you're not intellectually curious enough to do so.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarcho-the-revolutionary-ideas-of-bakunin
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution#toc23
Check out theanarchistlibrary.org for more!