People keep posting this Anarchist meme

Anarchism doesn't fail internally because it has no standards of internal performance it has to meet.

Similarly enough, Free Market cannot "fail", only Planned economy can - it has tasks it has to achieve and not succeeding at those tasks means failure. Market doesn't have tasks and - whatever happens - will always "function".


The same with Anarchism. When soldiers (Paris Commune) refuse to fight - it doesn't mean Anarchism failed internally, it means soldiers executed their basic right.

But if it would've been Statism of any kind, it would be a definite failure: you provided lodging, food, clothes, weapons, ammunition - and all went to waste. The same happens other Statist standards are applied to Anarchism - we'll see Anarchism is failing internally all the time:

Once you abolish all laws, crime rate will become zero - a complete superiority of Anarchism over Statism, yes? But people will get murdered be involuntary ceasing to function more often.


Anarchism has no internal tasks to complete. It has no standards. This is why it cannot "fail" internally, but will always fail externally: enemy army is an objective factor you cannot bullshit away.

Anarchism cannot fail because it's a failure in itself. You cannot lose if you've never even made an attempt. We all know, but you wont get this in an anarkiddies head. Well, good luck wasting your energy on them.

No government in history has ever had this. Do you think the United States government or any other will someday do an internal audit and say

Good point

I needed to get it out of my system.

Government justifies it's powers by assuming responsibilities.

Army has discipline. When discipline is lacking, it is considered a failure.

State has laws. When laws are broken, it is considered a failure.

Socialist state has Planning. When Planning cannot properly distribute goods - as it claim it would - it is called a failure.

It would seem all those you listed have failed or are bound to fail at some point.

Everyone alive will die at some point. But not living is not a solution.

Troll.

You are witty but anarchists are idiots, being a dumbass is a prerequirement to become an anarchist. Really, why are you doing this to yourself? I can understand shitting up their place from time to time and getting a reaction out of them, but your OP is just way too much effort these guys aren't worth.
Anyways, i don't mean to stop you if this is what makes you happy.

From what I can see, you are making a circular argument. Because there is no government in anarchism, you can't point to the government and say that this or that function has been a failure.

When of course you could simply look to these functions as they are fulfilled outside of the state assuming they are needed at all and judge them accordingly.

...

A lot of anarchists as well as people in general mix state with central government and anarchism with anomie.
Anarchism is not the abolishing of the state, because the state is everything. It's the people, the institutions, the cities, the government and the political system.
Anarchism is simply recongnizing that central government is bad. The more powers a governemnt has, the less likely it will serve the people.
You can not abolish the state, that is simple an impossible thing to do. What you can do is abolishing central government and give more power to descentralized governments that will spawn throught out a country.
For instances, Switzerland has 7 presidents, elected from each canton. This way the power is divided between 7 persons and they will have to talk and negotiate between themselves.

Of course there must be laws in a anarchist society. What i do not like, is passing laws as if that alone solves the problem, because most often it doesn't. The drug laws are an amazing example. In most countries cocaine is illegal by law. Did it solve anything? No, people can still find cocaine in the black market. So perhaps what the government should do instead of passing a law, is to tackle the problem from a different perspective. Why do people feel the need to consume cocaine? Is it perhaps because of alieanation? so on and so forth.
This is more or less what i believe in and i still consider myself an anarchist. Not anarcho-something, but a plain anarchist.

Maybe if the Stalinists could stop violently repressing the anarchist movements, we could actually create some objective standards for evaluating non-hierarchical societies function and can self-improve.

Also the free market fails all the time, just ask any conservative.

That is a nice analysis but it is wrong on both cases
Anarchism demands the destruction of the existingnsocial order because the existing social order has proved to be not only ineffective but out-right incapable of ending exploitation. As it the state itself defends private property

Anarchism has no duty on creating new laws, but to abolish them, and there are several methods to do so, so it can definitely fail on its own, like in catalunya, paris commune, the ukraine and other state-like movements

Such theory can fail because it seeks the construction of certain social order

Anarchism can also refuse to fight against the state in conventional warfare, and can seek to subvert and sabotage it, this theory of counter-economics is completly different from armed insurrection, and thus can also fail if not implemented properly

Problem is that if being good at revolutions that does not actually implement socialism makes you a good socialist, then clearly the CIA are the best crypto-commies on earth.

...

...

Allocation of resources?

If you admit Marxism-Leninism has in fact failed, why the hell are you flagging with the 'moustache of bad theory'?

Don't tell me what to do, faggot.

I don't like shitting places up. And discussing Marxism requires some understanding of what non-Marxists think. Holla Forums is quite for useful.


Those functions are not fulfilled outside of state.

I was talking primarily in the context of concept that "cannot fail", rather than about each and every variety of Anarchism (I will not even hazard a guess how many there are).

There are specific people who are making this specific argument. They have a specific Anarchism in mind. The one that doesn't have anything that can "fail" internally. My point is that such Anarchism isn't worth anything (just like Free Market).

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Does central government mean simply central government (every citizen voting directly is also central government), or does it mean a group of corrupt state officials acting without oversight? People tend to confuse those.

It would make more sense to suggest Soviet power structure as an example.

Also, you are wrong about Switzerland. Technically, there is one president.

I would strongly recommend reading about Opium Wars in China (and consequences) before saying "laws don't solve anything".

Like what?
- Paris Commune was way before Bolsheviks.
- Black Guards were mostly gangsters.
- Makhno was a nomadic warlord.
- Kronstadt was Anarchist in name only.

Or are you implying that Stalinists suppressed Spain?

The main point is that the argument about "internally unfailing" Anarchism is wrong.

CIA is doing counter-revolutions and coups. Not actual revolutions (unless I missed something).

Since cultists of the Invisible Hand believe in Free Market being the ultimate measure of worth, it is literally impossible for Free Market to allocate resources incorrectly (yes, circular logic).

Where did I say that ML failed? Theory cannot fail. It can only be superseded by a better theory. Only attempts to do something can fail.

For example, we can't say USSR failed, because there is no specific task that we are talking about.

We can say, that October Revolution failed to transition into World Revolution (keeping in mind that it was primarily failure of European/American attempts at Revolution, not the fault of Bolsheviks).

Yes. I guess, it was your post that I got finally annoyed by.

Do you have anything to say on topic?

i like u stacheman, but plz become mao
mao is the way, mao is love

I like your argument here about anarchism Koba, but I don't think your logic is good when you talk about the markets.