• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 天前

    why would you threaten me with a bat in the first place?

    Some people are greedy, or jealous, or just want to be in power.

    If we have an anarchist society, then we have already been successful at dismantling power structures. Any attempts to establish new power structures can be dealt with in the same way

    That seems like circular logic that hand-waves the intrinsic difficulty of the task as a trifling detail. You’re assuming a solution exists, and then assuming that solution can deal with any new threats.

    Anarchism requires permenent revolution, a commitment by the society to collectively prevent the formation of new power structures. It requires serious social changes that are likely to take at least a single generation, but probably longer.

    That just leaves the tricky transition period. What do we do in the meantime? I think a single generation is massively underselling the timescale, what you’re describing is likely to take a century or more. You can’t build a system off of humans suddenly having heretofore unobserved commitment to the collective good.

    We’re berry-picking primates advancing too fast for our nervous systems to keep up. Anarchism is a nice utopia to think of, but it isn’t much comfort for people living today.

    • bearboiblake@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 天前

      Seems like your mind is made up! I think this is just going to be one of those “agree to disagree” situations. The answers to your objections can be found in the Anarchist FAQ, I’d recommend learning more about it before dismissing it!

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 天前

        On the contrary, my mind is constantly open and I’ve read quite a bit. But what I’ve read generally falls into three categories:

        1. Totally hand-wavey, concerned more with guiding principles than actionable models. No attempt is made to describe how to devise a non-hierarchical system that fulfills the needs of the people.

        2. Delusional, based entirely on people suddenly being way more cooperative and efficient in group decisions than they’ve ever actually been observed to be en masse.

        3. Inconsequential, “non-hierarchical” is abstracted so far that most modern democracies could be described as such after relatively minor reform. These seem the most practical to me, like the proponents actually considered the mechanics of how the system would work in the material world.

        I’m not trying to dismiss it, but everything I’ve read either makes it sound like a fantasy, or a minor change.

        • bearboiblake@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 天前

          Again, humans are incredibly co-operative, but we’ve all been subject to brainwashing from childhood against our better natures. We can act against that brainwashing. It absolutely requires a social revolution - we need to be honest about our society and culture. If you think co-operation is delusional, I’d recommend learning a bit about paleolithic and neolithic human societies.

          Anyways, I’m sure you won’t change your mind, the brainwashing is real, I get it, it’s tough. As long as you’re anti-capitalist, that’s fine with me, you’ll get there.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 天前

            Paleolithic and neolithic societies didn’t have millions of people. The small percentage of greedy people becomes a much greater problem at that scale.

            I find it pretty offensive that you can’t conceive of any disagreement that isn’t the result of brainwashing. It’s extremely counterproductive

            • bearboiblake@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 天前

              There is no productive conversation to be had. I’ve stated my case and you’ve stated yours. I’m convinced I’m right, you’re convinced that you’re right. There’s nothing I can do to change your mind. I’m not insulting you or whatever, it’s just the reality of the situation. Your beliefs are built from your experiences and you believe that humans can’t put aside greed to co-operate. It’s sad that you believe that, but I’m unable to change it. Only you can do that, and I’m not seeing any interest, you just want what you currently believe to be correct, and to not have to change your world view. I understand that because I’ve been in the same place. I can only hope something I’ve said has taken root in your mind and will sprout some time in the future.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 天前

                Right but you equally aren’t interested in changing your worldview. I also used to believe the things you did. Why do you assume it’s me that’s brainwashed and not you? I changed my mind because of interacting with people in many contexts. I’ve witnessed them be selfish, lazy, combative, for no reason other than emotional response.

                The fact that you’re so stubborn proves my point. Here we are, you refusing to cooperate to find new ground, unwilling to believe that my perspective comes from experience and not propaganda. It’s ironic. How do you expect an entire civilization to cooperate if you can’t find common ground in a simple conversation?