I know anarchism is a popular ideology among /his/torians, and I'd love to be educated about it. What are the differences between the different sects in layman's terms, and what are the supposed advantages that anarchy would bring?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy.pdf
https://libcom.org/files/AlexanderBerkman-ABCofAnarchism.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y
>>1389370
>I know anarchism is a popular ideology among /his/torians,
Is it? I've found /his/ to be pretty politically moderate (for 4chan at least)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Defense_of_Anarchism
It's more of an exploration of the philosophical implications than having any particular political agenda, which I like about it.
It also actually has good points
>>1389370
Anarchism is a utopian ideology, and like all utopianisms it's chief failing is it's denial of human nature.Anarchists believe that people are born as blank slates, and that they could be raised to be purely unselfish and cooperative with the right kind of education. Sadly, humans /do/ a nature, and it is primarily self-interested. Even if 90% of the population got on board with an Anarchist agenda, the remaining 10% of free riders and psychopaths would quickly drive the system into the ground.
>>1389480
This is a weird comment. I don't think I've ever seen anarchist philosophy even imply this. In fact Kripotkin amd Bakunin suggest that we aren't just blank states and stress that we're social animals.
Here's a quote from one of my favorite essays from Kropotkin's "Are we good enough":
>But men are not those free-minded, independent, provident, loving, and compassionate fellows which we should like to see them. And precisely, therefore, they must not continue living under the present system which permits them to oppress and exploit one another.
>>1389480
>>1389480
>utopian
>human nature
>a few bad people will ruin society
Wow anarchists have never heard these arguments before
>>1389370
Read Chomsky's On Anarchism.
I'm sure this can be called some kind of logical fallacy, and is also stating the obvious, but most people have a false idea of what anarchism means. This is problematic on a place like 4chan, because in the USA, 'anarchism' has tended to mean something like libertarianism, which again in American terms is really a perversion of what it means to the rest of the world. American 'libertarianism' is in direct opposition to what Bakunin (who warned of commie and Stalinist perfidy) or ancient Greek philosophers would think of the term 'anarchism'.
In essence, 'anarchism' is merely the rejection of arbitrary authority on all levels. All authority must justify itself, constantly. We'd still have taxes, courts, prisons, roads, hospitals, banks, police and perhaps a military (of course, anarchism would probably lead to much smaller states). It is meant to be a system where political choices are kept at the grass-roots levels as far as possible. That's really it.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you can agree with this, you'd probably make a decent anarchist.
>>1389648
I view Bakunin as a philosophical decedent of classical (i.e. pre-capitalist era) liberals like John Stuart Mill.
How off is this, really?
>>1390704
Even John Stuart Mill I think became a socialist of sorts later in life IIRC. Chomsky has a pretty interesting viewpoint in that he thinks that anarchism is the logical extension of that classical liberal philosophy, so maybe there's something there but don't think it's not an explicit connection seeing as anarchism and liberalism are basically opposed to each other.
>>1392426
>anarchism and liberalism are basically opposed to each other.
how so?
>>1392881
It's basically opposed to the private ownership over the means of production which liberalism is fundamentally in favor of. Anarchism is also opposed to the state and central governing body whereas as far as I'm aware liberals believe in different sorts of social contracts that attempt to legitimize state authority and majority rule.
