No, that is proof SOMETHING prevents them, not at all the thing you’re describing, proof the thing you’re describing would be a primary source saying that happened.
Thousands of years of human history is enough for me.
So, first, you acknowledge that the only reason anarchism is destroyed is due to external forces, not internal politics, then, you say, see?
As long as people are involved, there’s the possibility for something to wrong. Although, when there is no central government, there isn’t as much potential for severe internal political turmoil. The stakes are much lower because the communities would be much smaller.
Thousands of years of human history is enough for me.
By this logic, if you were a feudalist, you’d say “capitalism could never work” simply because the conditions haven’t been historically right.
As long as people are involved, there’s the possibility for something to wrong. Although, when there is no central government, there isn’t as much potential for severe internal political turmoil. The stakes are much lower because the communities would be much smaller.
Right, so, anarchism has a reduced chance of internal strife and failure…
I do appreciate how much hope you have.
It has nothing to do with hope, and everything to do with reading and understanding theory and history.
Thousands of years of human history is enough for me.
As long as people are involved, there’s the possibility for something to wrong. Although, when there is no central government, there isn’t as much potential for severe internal political turmoil. The stakes are much lower because the communities would be much smaller.
I do appreciate how much hope you have.
By this logic, if you were a feudalist, you’d say “capitalism could never work” simply because the conditions haven’t been historically right.
Right, so, anarchism has a reduced chance of internal strife and failure…
It has nothing to do with hope, and everything to do with reading and understanding theory and history.