If the crux of your argument is “Everytime anarchism happens it is too weak to protext itself from foreign influence.” Then you have a weak governmental system.
that goes for every single governmental system (including the current existing system if another system, say anarchy, suddenly becomes dominant). you’re pretty much going to be forced into a crippled state due to how resources are allocated on a global scale. the only way to be a semi-functional radical state is by providing a political chess piece to external opposing powers.
Anarchy works, capitalists just try to destroy it as fast as they can, it just needs to happen in the US first, since it owns half the worlds military, or china. Small scale experiments like the zapatistas prove the legitimacy of the core ideas.
If the US became anarchist, there would be no such issues.
The link is regarding the informal economy of Somalia a country without a government.
When I say formal economy I mean how things work in anarchy. Or are you just planning to take the did from others that are weaker then you if there isn’t enough for all?
Anarchy has nothing to do with “not having government” you fundamentally misunderstand anarchism if you think that’s what it means. Somalia in no way resembles what any anarchist philosophers said. If you think it does, I must know, which philosophers are you citing?
If you want a real-world example check the zapatistas, or the native americans pre-colonialism.
If you say “why didn’t they win against white people if their ideology was so good” and the answer to that is rather obvious, exploiting people is very efficient.
As for what would be different, it is very difficult for a nation to fight the world, it’d be easy if that nation was the US.
Zapatistas don’t claim they are anarchist, and they do still have to defend themselves. And apparently currently they are in crisis so serious they need to dissolve most oftheir organs to (hopefully) completely reorganise.
If the crux of your argument is “Everytime anarchism happens it is too weak to protext itself from foreign influence.” Then you have a weak governmental system.
that goes for every single governmental system (including the current existing system if another system, say anarchy, suddenly becomes dominant). you’re pretty much going to be forced into a crippled state due to how resources are allocated on a global scale. the only way to be a semi-functional radical state is by providing a political chess piece to external opposing powers.
So anarchy doesn’t actually work ok point made. It’s like saying but if we had machines that made food from air.
But we don’t
Anarchy works, capitalists just try to destroy it as fast as they can, it just needs to happen in the US first, since it owns half the worlds military, or china. Small scale experiments like the zapatistas prove the legitimacy of the core ideas.
If the US became anarchist, there would be no such issues.
Real life anarchy is happening right now, it happened before, it never did work. Explain how it would be different exactly?
https://youtu.be/UkkJuqTbLIU?si=p2eZEv4gr84IUoKf
The link is regarding the informal economy of Somalia a country without a government.
When I say formal economy I mean how things work in anarchy. Or are you just planning to take the did from others that are weaker then you if there isn’t enough for all?
Anarchy has nothing to do with “not having government” you fundamentally misunderstand anarchism if you think that’s what it means. Somalia in no way resembles what any anarchist philosophers said. If you think it does, I must know, which philosophers are you citing?
If you want a real-world example check the zapatistas, or the native americans pre-colonialism.
If you say “why didn’t they win against white people if their ideology was so good” and the answer to that is rather obvious, exploiting people is very efficient.
As for what would be different, it is very difficult for a nation to fight the world, it’d be easy if that nation was the US.
native Americans where not anarchist ok I’m talking to a door
Plenty were very similar, but not exactly, yes.
Zapatistas don’t claim they are anarchist, and they do still have to defend themselves. And apparently currently they are in crisis so serious they need to dissolve most oftheir organs to (hopefully) completely reorganise.
https://radiozapatista.org/?p=46648&lang=en
And this is not even the case where government did a full assault on them, it’s just increasing pressure.
I’m aware they claim not to be anarchist, but they resemble it quite a bit, they are horizontally organized.
Agree, they do, but might not be any longer. Seems like they are on the junction of getting more organised to resist the bandits and agents.