It would not, because it’s not advocating for anarcho-primitivism. You can have green agriculture without starving the world’s population. You can produce medication without duplicating factories competing and millions others pushing out consumerist crap.
We do not need the levels of industry or destructive agriculture we have today.
But how are you going to organise the extremely complex supply change that are needed to maintain modern society? Do you seriously believe that would be possible without overarching organisational structures?
Through an extremely complex system of horizontal organizing between mutually federated collectives of workers where authority comes from the bottom up instead of the top down.
Yes. I do believe alternative systems of organization are indeed possible. There are no material necessities for hierarchy.
It will be something that workers of those industries will have to figure out for themselves. It will take time and effort but there is nothing to suggest that it is impossible.
No, which is why anarchists advocate for horizontal organisation instead of vertical.
Compare a mesh to a chain, a chain loses a link and it collapses. A mesh loses a connection and it’s still supported by the surrounding connections.
This sort of organisation is anti-hierarchical, adaptable and flexible to change. We don’t need monolithic foundational organisational structures but small adhoc organisation that meets its needs and can end when needed.
This sort of organisation is anti-hierarchical, adaptable and flexible to change. We don’t need monolithic foundational organisational structures but small adhoc organisation that meets its needs and can end when needed.
I agree that they’re not needed, but I do think that long-term organizations are more useful than ad hoc ones.
I think we’ve been down this path before, just wanted to say, you know, it’s important that people who disagree with anarchists learn that that doesn’t mean that anarchy is impossible or even the least desirable outcome. Anarchism (in the political-philosophical sense) is preferable to a great many states of society - our current one not least of all - and more non-anarchists should come around to that.
I think sometimes people forget to have degrees of disagreement, especially when they’re confronted with something out of our current society’s Overton window, like anarchism. “It’s not optimal” doesn’t have to be “It’s not possible” or “It’s not desirable, compared to numerous other positions we could end up in”. But instead many land directly on “The way I believe in is the only way possible and desirable” because that’s the thinking that current society normalizes in us.
And fuck, if that’s true for any of our ideologies, statistically speaking, most of us are fucked, because we can’t all be the only correct ones when we all have contradicting positions.
A little left pluralism from non-anarchists could go a long way.
Most of this goes about without overarching organizational structure. For all the delusions of free market types, the ‘invisible hand’ metaphor of Adam Smith still holds validity - exchange between free actors perpetuates itself in a more or less functioning manner. Not always an ideal manner, but functionality is not the issue.
We just have the task of handing over society’s power to the workers, not the people who have been collecting currency for generations.
But you do understand that would lead to the death of about 90% of all people?
I’m getting tired of these uninformed lib takes.
It would not, because it’s not advocating for anarcho-primitivism. You can have green agriculture without starving the world’s population. You can produce medication without duplicating factories competing and millions others pushing out consumerist crap.
We do not need the levels of industry or destructive agriculture we have today.
But how are you going to organise the extremely complex supply change that are needed to maintain modern society? Do you seriously believe that would be possible without overarching organisational structures?
Through an extremely complex system of horizontal organizing between mutually federated collectives of workers where authority comes from the bottom up instead of the top down.
Yes. I do believe alternative systems of organization are indeed possible. There are no material necessities for hierarchy.
It will be something that workers of those industries will have to figure out for themselves. It will take time and effort but there is nothing to suggest that it is impossible.
No, which is why anarchists advocate for horizontal organisation instead of vertical.
Compare a mesh to a chain, a chain loses a link and it collapses. A mesh loses a connection and it’s still supported by the surrounding connections.
This sort of organisation is anti-hierarchical, adaptable and flexible to change. We don’t need monolithic foundational organisational structures but small adhoc organisation that meets its needs and can end when needed.
I agree that they’re not needed, but I do think that long-term organizations are more useful than ad hoc ones.
I think we’ve been down this path before, just wanted to say, you know, it’s important that people who disagree with anarchists learn that that doesn’t mean that anarchy is impossible or even the least desirable outcome. Anarchism (in the political-philosophical sense) is preferable to a great many states of society - our current one not least of all - and more non-anarchists should come around to that.
I think sometimes people forget to have degrees of disagreement, especially when they’re confronted with something out of our current society’s Overton window, like anarchism. “It’s not optimal” doesn’t have to be “It’s not possible” or “It’s not desirable, compared to numerous other positions we could end up in”. But instead many land directly on “The way I believe in is the only way possible and desirable” because that’s the thinking that current society normalizes in us.
And fuck, if that’s true for any of our ideologies, statistically speaking, most of us are fucked, because we can’t all be the only correct ones when we all have contradicting positions.
A little left pluralism from non-anarchists could go a long way.
You really have no idea how the world works.
And this is why I generally ban libs instead of engaging with them respectfully. Welcome to the pile.
I mean…
That’s…
That’s literally how it works now.
Most of this goes about without overarching organizational structure. For all the delusions of free market types, the ‘invisible hand’ metaphor of Adam Smith still holds validity - exchange between free actors perpetuates itself in a more or less functioning manner. Not always an ideal manner, but functionality is not the issue.
We just have the task of handing over society’s power to the workers, not the people who have been collecting currency for generations.