Communist

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!

The local hospital needs to decide how much money (read: resources) to spend on constructing a new wing, and who should do the job.

The consensus building forum, an example of one of these that you can research are the zapatista councils of good government

A power line has to be built to replace the one that just fell down, and your direct democracy decided last week that you want to do something to incentivise the farmers to produce healthier and more sustainable food, rather than easy to produce and unhealthy food, but you haven’t ironed out the details yet. The next option you have to affect these decisions is later today, when you’ll have some kind of meeting or vote to decide on the matters. How you will find a time and place that allows everyone to have their say is an obvious issue, but I’ll leave it to you to explain how to overcome it.

This has never been an issue in any anarchist society that has ever existed. If you have a historical example, please point to it! They simply set aside a day of the week to allow people to form consensus, they would discuss the issue and anyone that wants to say something about it can, and then there’s either a vote on the matter, or a consensus decision.

These decisions need to be made, and when everyone doesn’t agree, there needs to be a mechanism to get stuff done regardless. I haven’t even gotten started on how to deal with internal groups or outside forces that want to exploit the system or the society as a whole.

Yeah, in zapatista councils if everyone doesn’t agree they leave it to a vote. Outside forces are definitely a problem for sure, but I see no reason to believe it’s an unsolveable one, and it certainly doesn’t mean you aren’t completely strawmanning the anarchist argument.

Please explain how this is solved without some kind of hierarchical system where some people make decisions and enforce those decisions on behalf of the group as a whole. These are the roles we typically assign to “rulers” or “the state” (i.e. the bureaucracy).

Anarchists are for the abolishment of all unjust heirarchy, not all heirarchy in general, this is also a strawman. In an anarchist society this would often be done with a weekly or monthly randomly assigned rotation, although there are tons of methods.

Please actually bother to take a moment and read the works of proudhon, bakunin, and kropotkin, even a summary, before you talk about your strong opinions about anarchism. You simply don’t know enough to begin to have an argument, I wouldn’t give strong opinions about something I don’t even know the basics of. You don’t even know the difference between a government and a state and that’s covered in anarchism 101.

There are tons, they just are usually destroyed by outside forces

https://anarwiki.org/List_of_Anarchist_Societies

Maybe you mean general elections on every detail of law, but again, that’s impossible, it’s stupid, it’s a waste of time and resources to have people decide how farmers interact with suppliers and dairy, something 99.9% of all people have no knowledge of.

this is not a problem in any real world anarchist society that has ever existed, can you give one example of this being a problem? What actually happens is building law through consensus, look at the way the zapatistas organize for example.

showing up to the meetings isn’t mandatory, but they have one day off where everyone is allowed to participate, in the event of a tie, they vote, but most decisions are made through consensus.

also I think you vastly overestimate how much laws need to be changed, lawmakers will not endlessly go back and forth about unimportant things. did you know most members of congress in the US don’t even read the bills they sign? How much work is it really to help with making law once a week or so?

representative democracy is not direct democracy to be clear

Anarchists believe in a government with direct democracy, you are arguing against a strawman

Anarchists aren’t against government, or even taxes, they’re against the state, which is different.

you defeated a strawman, no anarchist philosopher would disagree that that would be stupid

ITT: Nobody has any idea what any anarchist philosopher ever said or believed and simply thinks it means no rules

They then strut victoriously, thinking they are smarter than every anarchist philosopher who has ever existed because they know that rules matter in a society, not realizing that no anarchist thinker has ever said “let’s just have no rules or organization and just see how it goes based on the vibes”