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.
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.
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.
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.
there’s a reason we use primary sources to analyze things, which books of proudhon, kropotkin, or bakunin have you read?
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?
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.
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
Categorically false, you could’ve made this argument about capitalism during feudalist times, capitalist countries absolutely do dogpile anarchists and communists.
No, but they were then oppressed by feudal lords… before that, there were plenty of anarchists
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.
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.