I want you to completely break apart anarchism, your best and most convincing arguments against it...

I want you to completely break apart anarchism, your best and most convincing arguments against it. I want you to break it apart into tiny piece and make it so that after reading your responses no rational human being would consider it a viable form of structuring society in any way.

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/user/Kar_Athri
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

1. anarchists are fat
2. and stupid

I think you mistook Rebel for an anarchist.

Kronstadt was pretty good, i guess.

kek

One argument that could be made is that an Anarchist society would fail without a state because the neighboring nations would take advantage and destroy an Anarchist society.

Savage!

They don't like my husbando, Lenin :'(

How do we know that rebel is fat?

That's not really concrete. I would imply that their is something inherent to anarchists that makes them unable to defend themselves to any degree or that simply having an anarchist society exist means a reaction from neighboring nation states, a good example of the counter argument to that would be the zapatistas autonomous zones in Mexico. The Mexican army could probably go in and wipe everyone out if they wanted to but the zapatistas are still there.

A facebook pic of rebel leaked out, it turns out he is obese and underage

Anarchism isn't enough. It is silent on any issue that doesn't fit within the social hierarchy analysis. Which is fine, but people treat anarchism as if it were an all encompassing roadmap for all of humanities concerns. "Hierarchy reductionists", if you will. Anarchism is far too narrow of an analysis to even attempt to be a way to "structure society". Not every ethical question can be answered by saying "no hierarchy!".

For the purposes it serves, it is a fine philosophy. But I don't identify strictly as an anarchist, because it leaves too many question, sometimes the most pressing ones, unanswered.

This is false.

...

space_ pls

It was kaworu all along :^)

...

Hes a big guy. Good thing he has a baggy jumper :^)

space_ that's not me we've discussed this

Anarchism in general believe the state is unnessecary, many believe hiearchy is wrong, and many wish to abolish provate property. There is more to anarchism than "muh liberty"

I can't do that but suffice it to say anarchism is just an absurd handicap only justified by an irrational fear of centralization. Most people recognize this and reject it. That won't stop the anarchists from thinking they can set up a full gift economy and global socialism the day after the revolution though.

Guys we have State shills.

...

you sound like you dont have much extensive knowledge of anarchism. What literature or experience do actually have with anarchism?

That would be the abolition of private property. What's your point?

Wasn't me.

woops forgot proofz

I dont think you know what anarchism is m8

holy fucking tabs

What are you doing on Reddit?

Muke/xexizy linked a couple of threads in IRC fam.

Redditor confirmed

Their is nothing inherently wrong with Reddit, especially in the smaller niche communities.
General reddit is fucking cancer though.

Could be worse:
reddit.com/user/Kar_Athri

Fix your tabs

You can't break what's already broken.
t. Thermodynamics

That's the point, though. Self-determination.

Well, no shit, a hammer isn't useless because you can't run computer software on it. No political tool is universal.

...

I'm fucking dying. But it needs more of me tbh

...

...

what if we have a global revolution and there are no nation/state left?

...

RAF get out.

REEEEEEEEEEEEE

That's true though. Unless someone is spooked by "muh nationalism", he won't sacrifice his life in war.

People have fought each other thousands of years before nationalism existed. Self preservation is a powerful instinct, people typically want to defend themselves from being killed and their livelihoods taken frthem.

You're trying to argue that anarchism is viable because communism is viable. They are the same thing, but communism has developed naturally after a proletarian state withers away gradually (having no use in society), while anarchy dismantles the state from the get go.

A classless, moneyless, stateless society can only come from a people that are ready to live in such a society. A socialist state creates these conditions so that following generations will not need a state.

Anarchists force a population of people born and bred under global capitalism to immediately assimilate to communism.

That's completely untrue. Are you shitposting?

No, it does not. If you look at examples of where anarchists had successfully achieved something you can trace a long history of event that lead up to those movement. Lets take Spain because that the best example i can think of, the structures that were used by the anarchists didn't just pop up, they had already existed to one extent or another as a practical way or organizing a society as late as the 1860's. The structures of mutual aid and solidarity were already in the society, the anarchists revolution simply brought them on at a larger scale for a larger portion of the population. It took years of hard work and experimentation to figure out something that worked, people didn't just go "we anarchist now, yay".

fucking kys anytime, biggest piece of shit poster on this site.