Why make a new government when it will inevitably end up as an oppressive regime, just like every other nation and government. (don’t @ me, even NZ, Denmark and other “perfect” countries are still oppressive) Why not go all anarchist? It’s worked for a time Ukraine and Spain and I believe it could work here.
Yeah, he’s seriously 15 years old mentally. Sounds like libertarian garbled nonsense.
We all benefit from altruism. Because of one thing, technology. Let’s talk medical care for one, I have access to better healthcare than any medieval king had, actually I would say any human being has had on this earth since before 1980? 1985? Hell I don’t even know when.
Why is that? Because of medical advancements caused by scientific collaboration, which can be guided by public funding and public interests. How do you have these breakthroughs? You educate the populace and direct attention to scientific accomplishments.
Fuck anarchy, we are social species. Social democracy is the shit!
I am pretty new to politics and I align more with social democracy, but I’ve always being curious about anarcho communism and it isn’t about losing scientific advancements or everyone for themselves. I think an anarchist would argue that these things are possible and in fact encouraged, but that they should be handled directly by the community, cutting out the middle man of the government.
Whether this could work or not is another dilemma, and one I cannot answer.
Most anarchists don’t reject scientific endeavors, especially those that have huge benefits on quality of life. I don’t think anyone really disagrees that the washing machine was a bad invention, nor any such invention that reduces the burden of domestic labor. Science and technology themselves are not the problem, rather the problem is with the incentives of the system around science and technology. A great example being the pharmaceutical industry. Medicine and the treatment of disease is obviously a good thing, but profiteering off of those medicines and treatments is the real problem. An anarchist would argue that these companies are not necessary to advance medical science and that many people would research medicine purely because they want to treat disease and not because they want to make all of the money in the world. In fact, the people actually doing the research are chronically underpaid, underfunded, and overworked.
As for “everyone for themselves,” this gets to a really interesting discussion amongst anarchists. Anarcho Communism leans into the idea that, without the hierarchical power structures of states, people will generally choose to self-organize amongst themselves to better their own lives. Forming non-hierarchical communities that share resources as needed, hence the communism part.
Generally anarchists assert that people do not have to participate in systems if they don’t want to, while also asserting the right of the individual to oppose hierarchical power structures that would try to erode the rights of an individual’s self-determination.
I just don’t believe that could work at the global scale for scientific advancement. Government or not we need regulated research and technology. You need a government to do that because otherwise what would be the punishment?
I think whatever the system we use we need to develop the technology to enable verification and proof based systems.
whatever the system people will lie, cheat, and manipulate so none of them will work properly until we have ways of confirming claims built into all our systems from scientific research, media and technology right to politics and maybe even ever day speech.
If Anarchism were to ever be realized and people governed themselves cooperatively, yes I do think that. I’d rather not debate because that’s my opinion and I don’t think it’s going to change. We can agree to disagree.
Fair points - but even so, I still wouldnt call Denmark an oppressive nation. I’d still take the modern day Danish government and its social democratic policies over a neoliberal shitty government any day.
By this metric, what country would qualify as free and non-oppressive?
I fully agree but my point is that it’s impossible to have a country like that. The only way for it ever to be achieved in my opinion is through Anarchism.
How’s anarchy supposed to work? Both Ukraine and Spain have functioning “oppressive” governments now. I always figured that it’d end up with whoever has the most guns ending up doing whatever they want.
The reason that those two countries are now under “authoritarian” rule is the fact that the anarchist communities that were functioning were shutdown by neighboring states. It would take a truly global revolution for anarchism to work. However, I could see that happening in my lifetime due to the state of the planet. Once there’s nothing left for us to extract and nothing left to fight over nations will have very little power.
This is why the unification of ends and means is so important. If we want to achieve a society that is non-hierarchical and free from oppression, the systems that we build within the struggle against oppressive forces needs to embody non-hierarchical organization and practice.
It’s why a revolution that’s created by a small minority, a “vanguard,” ceases to be revolutionary once it recreates state power and then must structure itself to the maintenance of it’s own authority.
Why make a new government when it will inevitably end up as an oppressive regime, just like every other nation and government. (don’t @ me, even NZ, Denmark and other “perfect” countries are still oppressive) Why not go all anarchist? It’s worked for a time Ukraine and Spain and I believe it could work here.
You think the world would be better if there was no government than if there was one like in Denmark or New Zealand? Are you serious?
Yeah, he’s seriously 15 years old mentally. Sounds like libertarian garbled nonsense.
We all benefit from altruism. Because of one thing, technology. Let’s talk medical care for one, I have access to better healthcare than any medieval king had, actually I would say any human being has had on this earth since before 1980? 1985? Hell I don’t even know when.
Why is that? Because of medical advancements caused by scientific collaboration, which can be guided by public funding and public interests. How do you have these breakthroughs? You educate the populace and direct attention to scientific accomplishments.
Fuck anarchy, we are social species. Social democracy is the shit!
I am pretty new to politics and I align more with social democracy, but I’ve always being curious about anarcho communism and it isn’t about losing scientific advancements or everyone for themselves. I think an anarchist would argue that these things are possible and in fact encouraged, but that they should be handled directly by the community, cutting out the middle man of the government.
Whether this could work or not is another dilemma, and one I cannot answer.
Most anarchists don’t reject scientific endeavors, especially those that have huge benefits on quality of life. I don’t think anyone really disagrees that the washing machine was a bad invention, nor any such invention that reduces the burden of domestic labor. Science and technology themselves are not the problem, rather the problem is with the incentives of the system around science and technology. A great example being the pharmaceutical industry. Medicine and the treatment of disease is obviously a good thing, but profiteering off of those medicines and treatments is the real problem. An anarchist would argue that these companies are not necessary to advance medical science and that many people would research medicine purely because they want to treat disease and not because they want to make all of the money in the world. In fact, the people actually doing the research are chronically underpaid, underfunded, and overworked.
As for “everyone for themselves,” this gets to a really interesting discussion amongst anarchists. Anarcho Communism leans into the idea that, without the hierarchical power structures of states, people will generally choose to self-organize amongst themselves to better their own lives. Forming non-hierarchical communities that share resources as needed, hence the communism part.
Generally anarchists assert that people do not have to participate in systems if they don’t want to, while also asserting the right of the individual to oppose hierarchical power structures that would try to erode the rights of an individual’s self-determination.
Does that help?
Yeah that checks out from what I’ve read.
Do you have any resources I could read? My main doubts are regarding how would it work on a global scale
I just don’t believe that could work at the global scale for scientific advancement. Government or not we need regulated research and technology. You need a government to do that because otherwise what would be the punishment?
I just can’t see it working on the large scale.
I think whatever the system we use we need to develop the technology to enable verification and proof based systems.
whatever the system people will lie, cheat, and manipulate so none of them will work properly until we have ways of confirming claims built into all our systems from scientific research, media and technology right to politics and maybe even ever day speech.
If Anarchism were to ever be realized and people governed themselves cooperatively, yes I do think that. I’d rather not debate because that’s my opinion and I don’t think it’s going to change. We can agree to disagree.
If people govern themselves, that’s a government. How do you actually imagine it would work?
…Denmark is oppressive? lol
In my opinion any entity that put’s power in the hands of a few who decide the fate of many (governments) will become oppressive to some degree. As for Denmark specifically: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/scandinavian-miracle-brutal-truth-denmark-norway-sweden. Also centuries of oppression of the First People’s in Greenland.
Fair points - but even so, I still wouldnt call Denmark an oppressive nation. I’d still take the modern day Danish government and its social democratic policies over a neoliberal shitty government any day.
By this metric, what country would qualify as free and non-oppressive?
I fully agree but my point is that it’s impossible to have a country like that. The only way for it ever to be achieved in my opinion is through Anarchism.
How’s anarchy supposed to work? Both Ukraine and Spain have functioning “oppressive” governments now. I always figured that it’d end up with whoever has the most guns ending up doing whatever they want.
The reason that those two countries are now under “authoritarian” rule is the fact that the anarchist communities that were functioning were shutdown by neighboring states. It would take a truly global revolution for anarchism to work. However, I could see that happening in my lifetime due to the state of the planet. Once there’s nothing left for us to extract and nothing left to fight over nations will have very little power.
This is why the unification of ends and means is so important. If we want to achieve a society that is non-hierarchical and free from oppression, the systems that we build within the struggle against oppressive forces needs to embody non-hierarchical organization and practice.
It’s why a revolution that’s created by a small minority, a “vanguard,” ceases to be revolutionary once it recreates state power and then must structure itself to the maintenance of it’s own authority.