redpill me on anarchy pls.
why is it good?why is it bad?
can it work?
Yes it can work.
in small scale at least
or in mountains
>>775158
>why is it good?
It treats people as adults, suggesting that every man and woman has the moral agency to treat one other well.
>why is it bad?
Because it's not true. Some people are moral imbeciles. Others are sociopaths, yet others are free riders (lazy cunts). Anarchism would work for Angels or robots, but not for humans.
>>775166
Indeed, families are often run on analogous principles of consensus-building and communal property.
>redpill
Back to pol
>>775170
was there ever a case when somebody or a society actually tried to achieve it or did it remain an idea on paper?
>>775181
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine
They tried it, got crushed by the Soviets
>>775181
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania
>>775181
There have been many attempts, some have lasted years or even more, but most fall apart or are crushed from outside fairly quickly.
>>775181
Makhno's Free Territory comes to mind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
>>775158
The problems with anarchism can be easily figure out by just looking at what would happen.
Basically all good people would have to band together to get rid of criminals. At that point you already are starting to erode what anarchism is. Then you have to band to get her further to have a united resistance against any outside forces. At this point you've got rid of anarchism.
Basically it can't work because every other form can crush it in seconds.
Can we please fucking make "redpill me on x" a bannable offence? For fuck's sake, it's getting fucking stupid.
>>775213
So it cannot work because a superior military force can crush it?
Do you really think thats a valid reason?
>>/pol/
>>775158
Society with out state organization and guidance.
Familes helping out other familes, country towns being able to function with barely any police ect
>>775228
Historically that's what always happened.
Anarchy in Catalonia? Too bad, Franco destroyed it.
Anarchy in the Ukraine? Too bad, Lenin destroyed it.
>>775228
It doesn't have to crush it by force.
Just think about how big companies can swallow up small companies. Anarchism has nothing it can do about bigger organization simply absorbing it piece by piece passively, just buying it out bit by bit. As the saying goes, united we stand, divided we fall.
It's not a good system if it crumble in the face of any other.
>>775229
As much as this really should be /pol/, I'd love to see more examples of it being attempted throughout history
>>775158
Regular army easy wipe off any anarchy.
Also anarchy easy turn to feudalism.
Salvador Dali was having idea about monarch-anarchist for protecting anarchy, but it is still form of feudalism.
>>775236
Well anarchism is still alive here in Spain there are communities with their own electricity supply and everything
>>775246
>Also anarchy easy turn to feudalism.
How so?
>>775252
What stopping anyone if they wanted to?
>>775252
For example Nestor Ivanovych Makhno and his gangsters collect tax "for protection of anarchy", and step by step Makhno can turn to a feudal lord, his gangsters to a suite of him, tax-payers to peasants with limited rights.
>>775256
Many people in the world consider themselves Revolutionary Anarchists.
Power can be centralised for a purpose, like the organisation needed to get drains dug or roads built, but as soon as anyone loses the favour of the people he serves he gets ousted, quickly and violently.
This puts anyone with any power in the unenviable position of responsibility.
>>775254
>What stopping anyone if they wanted to?
Power being decentralised and a general hostility to the concept?
>
For example Nestor Ivanovych Makhno and his gangsters collect tax "for protection of anarchy", and step by step Makhno can turn to a feudal lord, his gangsters to a suite of him, tax-payers to peasants with limited rights.
Doing that would have destroyed the support he had from his own soldiers trying to impose a central authority wouldn't be doable given how decentralised his military was, likewise the ability for his army to function was based around the willing support and knowledge of the peasantry .
>>775228
>Do you really think thats a valid reason?
Of course it's a valid reason, are you daft? Anarchism is literally the story of "why we can't have nice things".
If another entity can crush your 'gov't' and take what it wants, then inevitably it will. Anarchy is the weakest form of 'gov't' and is therefore at the mercy of its neighbors. Inevitably a neighbor will feel less than 'neighborly' and will wreck the anarchist nation. Thus, anarchy is fucked.
Anarchy is nice, and I'd love to live in an anarchist society, but anarchism is no good when it has no future.
>>775181
There's a book that discuss a proto-anarchist community in the mountain. The inhabitants were basically people who chose to seclude from 'civilized' cities (instead of the other way around, i.e., urbanization). Forgot the name, unfortunately. Actually it's John Green (lel) who mentioned it, as he has a penchant for being a pop-contrarian.
Anyway, how is this /his/-related since it's more /pol/.
Bad.
Infantile disorder.
Treating anarchy as a system to be imposed, and thinking you can judge it by the consequence is stupid.
>>775229
I know I should've posted it on/pol/ but in 5 minutes or less it would've turned into a big antisemitic mess
>>775282
Also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Good_Government
>>775279
Tolstoy's political theory was destroyed by Gelderloos
>>775158
Anarchy was a terrific idea and worked swimmingly.
10,000 years ago.
These days we have a technological basis and a population density that makes the idea retarded, and that's not even counting entrenched ideologies.
>>775267
>Power being decentralised and a general hostility to the concept?
Right, but if someone else decides they don't want anarchism, anarchism has no way to preserve itself. It can be overpowered in any manner very easily. It's like a house made of straw, cosy but fragile.
>>775213
>>Basically all good people would have to band together to get rid of criminals. At that point you already are starting to erode what anarchism is.
but then, not two people agree on what is good.
what you call criminal is not shared by everyone else.
what you are saying is that there is a moral realism and yet everybody thinking this fails to prove their stance.
>>775315
If someone decides they don't want liberal democracy, it has no way to preserve itself. It can be overpowered in any manner very easily. It's like a house made of straw.
