This is crazy

  • Five@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The pre-colon title is apposite as a quote from an anarchist soldier during a civil war. It was a response to a reporter asking how he felt about winning and “sitting on a pile of ruins.”

    “You must not forget, we also know how to build. It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities, here in Spain and in America, and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place, and better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth, there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world, here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute.“

    • EthicalAI@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This just doesn’t look good for anarchy tbh. Every time I’ve seen anarchy in action it’s, well, anarchy. They hate “states” but form councils? They hate states but fight micro wars with other anarchist groups? I think they just end up reinventing liberal democracy tbh. That’s why I’m more minarchist I think.

      • Five@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        How would a monarchist solve the problem of another monarchist group using violence to impose a patriarchal system on their group?

        • EthicalAI@beehaw.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Im just saying they are already statist. They are doing everything states do. So your question isn’t really much of a gotcha.

          • Five@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This isn’t a ‘gotcha’ game. I’m giving you an opportunity to explain the words you’re using, so I can better understand how you have come to an apparently self-refuting conclusion. I’m glad that my assumption was correct that you must be using a words in ways they weren’t intended. Are you just posting to ‘dunk’ on anarchism, or do you want to be understood?

            You are a ‘statist’ then. What functions would a minarchist state perform?

            • EthicalAI@beehaw.orgOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sorry your original question sounded like a gotcha because the answer to any question “How would a X solve the problem of another X group using violence to impose a patriarchal system on their group?” Is always exactly the same. Court, police, war.

              • Five@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sometimes people are creative in coming up with alternatives to court, police, or war, though those alternatives aren’t guaranteed to succeed.

                I admit I skimmed the article, but I got the impression that their response to ‘war’ was writing a zine. War usually involves two belligerent groups; a ‘war’ where there is only one group engaging in violence I think is more accurately called a massacre, an extermination, a holocaust.

                I feel that equating the morality of organized groups to the morality of states reduces important complexity in the concept of the state. I also feel the devil is in the details. Perhaps a both liberal democracy and a monarchy (I understand you are a supporter of neither) would use tools described as ‘courts, police, and war’ – but I would prefer to face the courts and police of a liberal democracy than those of a monarchy.

                • EthicalAI@beehaw.orgOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yea the devil is in the details, but the binary between state and no state is my main concern with the previous conversation. I think it’d actually be great if the police and military were rotated through the general population so we didn’t have a perpetual bully class and had people who could defend themselves. I think we should throw away representatives as a political class as equally trash as the buisnesses capitalist class and return to direct democracy with constitutional limits. Courts with a jury of your peers who need unanimous consent and a trained defendant is actually a pretty good system if the laws weren’t trash.

            • EthicalAI@beehaw.orgOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Pretty much exactly what their state performed. War, courts, police.

              I’m looking to form my worldview better. I started out more Chomsky-esc, believing in the elimination of unjust hierarchies. But I’m told he’s more minarchist because all hierarchy is unjust. But it’s obvious that the elimination of hierarchy historically just leads to the creation of new hierarchy’s, and I think this article is a microcosm of that. I’ve never even been able to run a public interest group without a constitution for the group, excommunication of troublemakers, etc. That’s called a state.

              So my intention isn’t to argue what I personally believe the state to do. It’s to say that they are minarchists whether they want to be or not. They formed a council (court), formed a mob to kick out a member (police), and participated in a war with a neighbor (military). Even as a small society that was unavoidable, imagine doing it with a city.

              • drapeaunoir@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think the confusion here might be in the qualities of what anarchists mean when they say “state.” It is commonly remarked that anarchists are against the state. But as you can probably imagine, they are not opposed to, say, libraries. Or emergency services. Or sewer lines.

                What “the state” represents, what anarchists are opposed to, is the upholding of the status quo. The reproduction of the system that murders people, pollutes the environment, enforces the necessity of wage slavery, protects billionaires and punishes the homeless.

                That giant system of oppression (capitalism) is not something these small groups can or want to do. Forming councils is very different from the prison industrial system. Kicking out a member is very different from arresting someone for stealing bread to feed his family. And scuffles with neighbors is hardly a war. These are the actions (right or wrong) of groups of friends. This is human-level drama.

                What anarchists oppose is the giant machine that is not human-sized; the unstoppable Leviathan that does not think or feel but rather lumbers eternally toward ever greater destruction and madness. It is the worldwide money monster that cuts the trees, turns farmland into parking lots, treats chickens like factory parts, and ensures there are more empty buildings than there are unhoused people.

                “The state” is the nation-state, yes. But it is also (and more importantly), the “state of things.” The awful, joyless, depressing, inescapable state of things. That is what anarchists really oppose.

                Caveats: 1) Not all anarchists feel this way. 2) I speak mostly from a North American perspective. 3) I didn’t read the article. 4) I’m a lemmy noob.

                • EthicalAI@beehaw.orgOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I feel that way, I’m becoming more anti capitalist by the day. But like, I still want cities is what I keep coming back to. I still want trains, global shipment of goods, technology. Post capitalism to me means freedom and wealth shared equitably among a global population. So a failure of a microcosm to me means a failure to scale.

              • Five@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Chomsky self-identifies as an ‘libertarian socialist’, which is widely regarded as a synonym for or category of anarchist, I don’t know what authoritative source told you he’s a minarchist. I’ve usually heard ‘minarchism’ used as a synonym for capitalists of the Libertarian Party persuasion. There’s a lot of disagreement about where the ontological borders of anarchism are, and it sound like someone who disagrees with Chomsky is trying to metaphorically push him outside of those borders rather than engage with his ideas.