The thought of Anarchy has appealed to me for a while now, and I am reading The Ego and His Own which makes it even more appealing, but there is one major flaw with it that makes me feel anarchy is impossible. If the state completely collapsed and we are left to our own devices, following our own desires, who would take care of nuclear reactors and prevent them from melting down? People need to constantly be taking care of and monitoring every nuclear reactor in the world to prevent them from melting down, and if they don't the entire world is pretty much fucked. It seems like the time for anarchy has passed and mass-common organization is necessary for the survival of our world. Any rebuttals to this?
Other urls found in this thread:
I don't think you've read anything about anarchy.
being anti-state is not the same as being anti-all organization.
Anarchism isn't chaos, the nuclear reactors will be taken over by the workers and things will continue as normal, minus capitalist exploitation and hierarchical dominance.
Please start with Mutual Aid: A Factor In Evolution or read it after
in fact, it is the exact opposite, that state impedes organisation
Anarchy is totally possible. It's just not nice, nor sane, nor sustainable.
Okay. That's a whole other level on insanity. Seriously, what kind of Anarchy are you even imagining? Even AnCap would be an improvement.
Except there will be nobody to enforce any of this. So it'll last until somebody gets a gang big enough to change status quo. I.e. 0.04 seconds.
You need to recognize the fact that most people have a different definition of "state" and "organization".
This is why all the stirner shitposts need to stop. Comrades dont even know what anarchism is anymore and confuse it with egoism and being edgy and chaotic.
Yes it is
Except the workers
Then stop fucking invading you piece of shit
Its funny when you think of the word "state" in terms of government and then "state" as in, "state of being, solid or liquid state" etc.
It makes me feel like the word means nothing. When you look at it like this it simply means whatever State of being currently resides. For me, Anarchism is the abolition of the current state of being and the establishment of a new proletarian state of being. Sure, abolish the state, call it something else, but the state of being I envisage is fundamentally different in nature to the current one.
So do I want to abolish the current state? Yes, do I think there are aspects of it that can be redeemed and aid in the creation of a new proletarian state? No. So I am an Anarchist.
Also, recognising that it is essentially a semantic argument of degrees, it is my position that the "state" as I envisage it is so fundamentally different to the current "state" in the governmental use of the word that, although the two can be called states, to lump them in the same category of states is woefully inaccurate. They are different being.
Should a de facto state arise from the proletariat themselves, with strong democratic structures, after the destruction of the bourgeoisie state, so be it. This is different to seizing the bourgeoisie state and emulating it.
Any enforcers that we made up to prevent this will turn into the very big gang we were afraid from the start. Between a mafia and a state, there is a difference of scale, not of nature.
They just want a decentralized state with local direct democracy and a volunteer police force
In their terminology is not a state because of the degree of decentralizing. I don't know how many anarchos care about "voluntaryism" if that's how you define a state
But yeah, you'd still have laws and rules they just want to get rid of the intense hierarchies of current States
(Anarchos are my comrades ofc)
I see Stirner's full egoism as how most people would be able to live like in a communist society. You still need some interim social organization like worker's councils to oversee the transition of society. If there aren't robots running that nuclear reactor, then it ain't communism. By that point I'd hope we reach nuclear fusion, so we don't have to worry about meltdowns
Read the soul of man under socialism, he talks about how without poverty everywhere all the time, it would free people of the constant pressure to live for others
No organization exists to organize them and let them force their will upon everyone else.
Invading what? Barcelona? From Soviet Union? Or Kronstadt?
What do you mean "no aspects"? The concept of law enforcement has to go? No army, no pension, no centralized medicine/education?
Those are aspects of state too, you know.
So … city is on fire, there is looting going, people are being killed because of fancy clothes, electricity is gone, food and water are also gone, but Proletariat has to have strong democratic structures?
I see only brutal authoritarian regime happening.
Destroying all organizations in modern era and expecting to survive for any period of time is flat-out insane.
As usual stalinist bootlicker cucks gets triggered by the idea of actual workers liberation
Current nuclear reactors are of the solid fuel type, The US army founded them for use in submarines and aircraft carriers, later on companies like general electric decided to sell them for civilian use
There are nuclearmreactors like thorium which require less maintenance and are safer in case of meltdown
Worker coops will take care of them anyway
Arguments. Do you have them?
Childishly irresponsible approach of "lets things sort themselves out" does not work. Not in 21st century. It didn't work in 19th century too, for that matter. Destroying "state" in one fell swoop is impossible to achieve without a huge chunk of population dying in process - even if you'll be able to pretend that it's not your fault.
You can only replace state - and this requires actual work and ability to deal with Bourgeois state you take over.
No one advocates for an overnight destruction of the state, please read a book to be less clueless
Except the community
Hungary, Spain, ukraine, and everywhere else you get your filthy hands on
Please fuck off
Yes I do but I tried to answer these commonly held notions with nuance in my above post and then you just repeated some chaos memes.
I support the creation of grassroots socialist institutions outwith the state, so that the state may be abolished and they may take power, not just just nuking the state
Read the thread. Someone doesn't like the idea of emulating bourgeois state.
Since you can't build a whole Socialist state within a week, you'll have to either force lawlessness and disorder upon the people, or use Bourgeois mechanisms to keep civilization functioning.
An user posting on leftypol isnt the authority at defining anarchism
Read a book so you stop being stupid
You cannot have "grassroots socialist institutions" of any significance under Capitalist regime. They will be stamped out.
Which is why the only way to get real democracy is to seize control over Bourgeois state - and keep it afloat.
Read a book
society will quickly segregate based on race in an anarchic environment
Do you have any fact to back that up?
nonus argumentus friendo
If only history wasn't littered with counter examples, for example, the bolshevik party
Thats not how it works, to read about anarchism you read anarchists theory, not leninism
I understand you are dumb bot not this dumb right?
based on the famous work of…..? In any case, surely this means you should be an anarchist.
Maybe you should read Proudhon and Bakunin. Famous Jew Haters.
I am of opinion that Bolsheviks succeeded at creating democracy.
Yes, it does. You are making arguments (SocDem arguments; not even Anarchist) that had been refuted more than a century ago.
Okay, but they are an example of a large grassroots socialist organisation under capitalism aren't they?
The opposite. Lenin had been accused of Blanquism - and for a good reason.
Unless "grassroot" is anything not directly ordered by state, you can't consider Vanguard to be such a thing.
You need to be less dumb
Really, how come anarchist practice is still aliive yet there has been no M-L movement in 30 years?
but I mean, that pretty much is what grassroots means, give or take
Is that what you've been told?
No. This is too vague definition. Even state itself could be considered grassroots organization then - at some point it wasn't a state.
okay, give me a definition of grassroots then, and we will work with it
How about you read some books and understand what anarchism is
Lel, please poimt out all the current praxis of M-L
Nuclear reactors have so many safety measures built in that if we just suddenly abandoned them they would safely shut down on their own.
Goals: specific, one-off.
Bolsheviks had a grand plan that was mostly about using Marxism as a method.
Method of reaching goals: using power at local level, rather than taking over hierarchical structure.
Bolsheviks (as any Marxists) were set on seizing the state first.
Organization: self-organized, on ad hoc basis.
Bolshevik Vanguard was quite strict about membership, discipline and following rules.
First Congress (1898) might've been considered grassroot, but not second (1903).
I don't think being one-off is essential to being grass roots
there have been plenty of hierarchical grassroots movements though, I mean, shit like the oathkeepers can be considered grassroots.
self organized yes But I don't know why it has to be ad hoc, most aren't.
In any case, if you would consider the first conference grassroots then that alone remains as proof
Proof of what? I already told you: all states begin as grassroot at some point.
Let's recap it:
To use Russian Revolution as an example of my point: those grassroot institutions are called Soviets. But - without guidance and organization by Bolsheviks - they can neither seize power, nor keep it, nor do anything with it.
To be able to function unmolested and exercise whatever power they can competently use (informed choice), Soviets need Bourgeois government deposed and destroyed. However, without economy - stability - Soviets can't function as well. Which is why Bolsheviks must use Bourgeois state to keep people alive.
Hence, accusations of "seizing and emulating" Bourgeois state are completely unfounded - there is no choice but to do it.
okay, and you are accepting that these grassroots organisations have been effective in change. So, my point stands, so, what I want to do is create such an institution, and then remove the state.
So my plan in that regard is basically your plan, where my plan differs in the nature of that institution, mine would be directly democratic, yours would be a Vanguard party.
But this simply is not true, the soviets can manage themselves
Chiapas and Rojava was your answer, and you failed!
Have you read Marx? I remember when you claimed commodity fetishism was about status symbols…
Those are merely one aspect of anarchism
To rephrase: Revolution is a popular Proletarian movement plus Vanguard.
My point is that such organizations are not sufficient to enact the change. Without political education and political will, there is no hope that government - even if it will establish order - will be able to act decisively and effectively - a must for any successful Revolution.
Yes. The whole uprising has an unacceptably huge chance to fail long before any direct democracy will be established, and - even if established - this direct democracy will prove to be quite ineffective during the most crucial period.
Which is why, first task is to seize the power, not try to establishing democratic institutions - and then seize power. To quote Lenin - Revolution must happen both from below and from above.
''- I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
- Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?''
Yes, Soviets can "manage" themselves. As long as you don't expect this "management" to be actual decisions that will change things.
There is ample evidence for self management being effective. Indeed, even Lenin was in favour of devolution to the soviets in theory, he just messed it up in practice
Then you'd better remember that Marxist definition of commodity fetishism made no sense within context (Pokemons) and I was clarifying what user meant by commodity fetishism.
What does this "devolution" mean? I can obviously start guessing, but I have a few fans that will whip themselves into frenzy, should I post something that could be misinterpreted as un-Leninist.
Mate, read The State and Revolution. WTF?
The Mahknovists, Catalonia, Rojava, Chiapas, Honduran Campesinos, etc etc
What have you read by Marx?
If you don't have arguments, then fuck off.
At no point does Lenin advocate "devolution" - whatever this should mean. And your "effective self-management" is a bullshit. Makhno never had any "democracy" going.
Should I include Engels? And do only works read in English count?
I like to believe that the moment anarchy is actually achieved it just turns into GTA:Online and everyone realizes just how bad things can really be.
Looking at how these riots go it's not too far off the mark as an examination.