It’s not the “different way of doing things” I have a problem with. It’s the people who think it means there should be no authority and they should be able to just do whatever they want. Regardless of its impact on the people around them. The walking tragedy of the commons that are most college freshmen who’ve just found out that Anarchy is a thing. They’ve obviously never thought about how 8 billion humans are going to do whatever they want with no authority.
I have a massive amount of respect for people who actually think about how to dismantle the capitalist system while maintaining mass infrastructure and durable systems that don’t just get knocked over the second someone wants to play warlord.
Well, the people that want to do whatever they want regardless of the impact on thers are not anarchocommunists. This is a misrepresentation of what anarchocommunists actually want, which involves organisation.
Good news, then! Your problem is not with anarchist. Not in the no true Scotsman way, either. I’ll quote a good one at the end, but essentially, anarchists do not believe there should be no authority, anarchists believe that authority should justify itself. Just and unjust authority exists, regardless of how you want to organize society. Anarchists even have groups, parties, organizations. The question isn’t whether or not we should have authority or whether we should just go buck wild and live every man for himself. What anarchists desire* is to maintain the infrastructure of our society, with resources being distributed in a more equitable way, and the decisions being made by way of the people who will actually be impacted by it, and by whose labor it was created.
*For the most part, anti and post civ not withstanding
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure.
That quote is generally referred to as the authority of the boot maker and most anarchists would suggest not only not referring to the boot maker when you need a tooth pulled, but also having the right, and often moral duty, of consulting more than one expert when possible
I think my point above, to use the Scots, is that I know there are true Scots. So it makes me mad when I find false Scots that can only talk about needing to tear stuff down. Often they mean to use violence. In my life I have been cursed to see the violence that occurs in a vacuum of power. I’m also acutely aware that power can be of the people or over the people. I saw both occur naturally. A time when people came together to aid each other and disburse food and heating propane logically and a time when the next town over decided it was going to expand, no matter what their neighbors thought about it.
So I do really want an alternative to capitalist and authoritarian systems figured out at scale.
I’m sorry if I didn’t make it clear but that’s kind of my point. I’m tired of teenagers who read half of 2.4, none of 2.3, and just expect magic to happen. I know there are people trying to work on alternative structures that don’t rely on exploitation but also are durable against aggressive groups that would take advantage of the lack of traditional authority. That’s the hard work that needs to be done.
Well then you can talk to people who have dedicated more time to think about anarchism. Instead of engaging with people you think are below your intellectual level and condescending on them.
Let the rest of the people have constructive conversations with them and move on.
Problem. They end up in an echo chamber and they go do something stupid. Then the corporate press uses it as evidence for why we aren’t allowed to have a different system.
It’s not the “different way of doing things” I have a problem with. It’s the people who think it means there should be no authority and they should be able to just do whatever they want. Regardless of its impact on the people around them. The walking tragedy of the commons that are most college freshmen who’ve just found out that Anarchy is a thing. They’ve obviously never thought about how 8 billion humans are going to do whatever they want with no authority.
I have a massive amount of respect for people who actually think about how to dismantle the capitalist system while maintaining mass infrastructure and durable systems that don’t just get knocked over the second someone wants to play warlord.
Well, the people that want to do whatever they want regardless of the impact on thers are not anarchocommunists. This is a misrepresentation of what anarchocommunists actually want, which involves organisation.
Good news, then! Your problem is not with anarchist. Not in the no true Scotsman way, either. I’ll quote a good one at the end, but essentially, anarchists do not believe there should be no authority, anarchists believe that authority should justify itself. Just and unjust authority exists, regardless of how you want to organize society. Anarchists even have groups, parties, organizations. The question isn’t whether or not we should have authority or whether we should just go buck wild and live every man for himself. What anarchists desire* is to maintain the infrastructure of our society, with resources being distributed in a more equitable way, and the decisions being made by way of the people who will actually be impacted by it, and by whose labor it was created.
*For the most part, anti and post civ not withstanding
That quote is generally referred to as the authority of the boot maker and most anarchists would suggest not only not referring to the boot maker when you need a tooth pulled, but also having the right, and often moral duty, of consulting more than one expert when possible
I think my point above, to use the Scots, is that I know there are true Scots. So it makes me mad when I find false Scots that can only talk about needing to tear stuff down. Often they mean to use violence. In my life I have been cursed to see the violence that occurs in a vacuum of power. I’m also acutely aware that power can be of the people or over the people. I saw both occur naturally. A time when people came together to aid each other and disburse food and heating propane logically and a time when the next town over decided it was going to expand, no matter what their neighbors thought about it.
So I do really want an alternative to capitalist and authoritarian systems figured out at scale.
You have a problem with a misconception of anarchism. Anarchists believe in the importance of organisation.
You should really take a look at An Anarchist FAQ.
I’m sorry if I didn’t make it clear but that’s kind of my point. I’m tired of teenagers who read half of 2.4, none of 2.3, and just expect magic to happen. I know there are people trying to work on alternative structures that don’t rely on exploitation but also are durable against aggressive groups that would take advantage of the lack of traditional authority. That’s the hard work that needs to be done.
Ah, that’s on me then, I read your comment as critical of anarchism as a whole, not of “anarchists” in aesthetic only 😅
Oh that’s perfectly fine. I’m a professional hair splitter and my words don’t always work as well as I would like.
Well then you can talk to people who have dedicated more time to think about anarchism. Instead of engaging with people you think are below your intellectual level and condescending on them.
Let the rest of the people have constructive conversations with them and move on.
Problem. They end up in an echo chamber and they go do something stupid. Then the corporate press uses it as evidence for why we aren’t allowed to have a different system.
Media is not based on reality anymore, if they don’t have the facts they want they fabricate it
Isn’t that just the split between individualist and collectivist anarchists? So like the difference between Stirner and e.g. Kropotkin?