i dont care if you do or don't agree with it
how do anarcho syndicalists claim not to employ coercion? and if they really don't coerce anyone to work, what of those who choose not to but leech off the society? jsut let them? because i think disallowing someone to leech would be saying they can't eat without work which sounds to me like capitalist coercion
sorry if ive compeltely misunderstood
if you thought that an anarcho-leftists could be reasoned with then you truly have completely misunderstood
all human discourse is coercion unless people automatically agree all the time, if freedom is the ability to do what someone immediately wants then any kind of challenge to somebody's beliefs or advocacy for the truth is coercion
this is why I left anarchism
>>1011211
ok but seeing as you once were anarchist, how would you have explained it back then? surely such an obvious answer must have an answer, no matter how weak the answer may be
>>1010072
another former anarchist here:
i do not think they would tend to claim that coercion was not present, but rather they would say 'b-b-but it is not a state doing it, so..'
>>1011576
>'b-b-but it is not a state doing it, so..'
This. Anarchists are retards.
Are you factoring in post scarcity?
>>1011604
>anarchism literally needs sci-fi technology to function
lel
>>1011603
I think that there are some things of value I have taken from it but my disdain of the milieu and what is now considered 'revolutionary' (a concept I do not believe in but to be read as: leading to some sort of radical cultural/structural change) is without measure.
>>1011604
>>1011606
The 'luxury communists' and the 'transhumanists', who i think I am right in lumping together, are the most terrifying people in the sphere of ideas to me and if some terrible tyrant were to promise their extermination, I would likely support it, though I do believe their ideas will eventually win the day anyway.
>>1010072
social anarchism only uses social coercion. Besides anarchistic society would mean institutions function to benefit individuals through benefiting the collective. We do not assume all man are good, and that is exactly why we try to eliminate the means they can do harm and change the culture to make people less likely to do harm.
>>1010072
>mfw every form of discourse is a form of coercion
>>1011825
>tfw can't escape the tyranny of language
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm
An overview of why Ansocs don't really believe in anarchy. Instead of having a 'state', the just rename it
>>1011896
>that incredibly disingenuous article written by a notorious ancap
Fucking wew.
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001532.html
>>1011908
>http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001532.html
Great article that proves my point exactly. While this thread is about ansocs, the same critique can be applied to ancaps as well.
In this piece, the author claims 'This would not be a state, becasue hierarchy would not exist and so each body would be autonomous.'
Essentially, the authors 'anarchism' lies in the rejection of the 'state', a thing that the anarchist themselves defined. In this definition of the state being the 'engine of heirarchy', it is quite possible that you could have bodies acting in a way that's very much like a state but not because of the way 'state' is defined.
>>1012010
Anarchists in this case see the state's hierarchy as unjust. They see the relationship between the mentor and the student or the director and the orchestra as justifiable hierarchy.
>>1011850
imagine a hegel porno film tho
>oh baby lets create a synthesis inside my belly
