88

Is there some connection to the nation?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BlackLaZoR@kbin.run 3 points 3 months ago

Question: Do you think that stateless and classless society is sustainable and won't evolve into a regular one?

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

In terms of modern ideological dogmaticism? No. Pragmatically I think it's possible to get very close. History has proven that. "Class" has never been a necessary construct. It's always negative, hurtful, and exclusionary. Statewise, it's always been more against nation state and to smaller extents even city-states. Large overarching structures. Keep in mind I'm coming out this from an actual Dejacque libertarian / anarco communist leftist perspective. Governance isn't the enemy. Just large overpowerful bodies with concentrated power.

[-] BlackLaZoR@kbin.run 0 points 3 months ago

I think it's possible to get very close

My problem with this, is that organized groups have always advantage over disorganized groups, whether in crime or in legit manufacturing/services. You have neverending growth of these groups into social classes. The closer you want to get to classless society, the harder and more oppressive you have to go against that social phenomena. And I've never seen a good explanation who would enforce the laws keeping the society close to that "classless" state

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

My problem with that is that it isn't about disorganization. That is a fundamental and widely perpetuated piece of misinformation about what anarchism / communism actually are. Anarchists can organize just fine. Now if what you want to argue is that detached highly concentrated power is capable of ordering atrocities and enforcing people to commit the atrocities in their name? Then yes they absolutely have the advantage. But in terms of actually doing the business of the people and governing. No there is no advantage. In fact it's often a disadvantage. Being insulated from the needs of those they govern and the effects of the poor policy they put in place. It's antithetical to good government.

[-] BlackLaZoR@kbin.run -4 points 3 months ago

Anarchists can organize just fine.

Organized anarchism isn't anarchism anymore.

Now if what you want to argue is that detached highly concentrated power is capable of ordering atrocities and enforcing people to commit the atrocities in their name? Then yes they absolutely have the advantage.

I'm not talking about just the atrocities. I'm talking bare economic efficiency - bunch of organized people are doing things faster and with lower amount of effort - and they will inevitably use that advantage to increase their standards of living. Suddenly you have an inequality.

Of course this issue encompasses also efficiency of criminal activity - organized crime pays more than not organized crime.

But the end result in both cases is the same - some people are better off than others

In short I strictly disagree with the statement:

in terms of actually doing the business of the people and governing. No there is no advantage.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Organized anarchism isn't anarchism anymore.

It is a literal organizational structure. Just a very flat one. You are using a colloquial malapropism. Not the actual definition/understanding of the ideology.

I'm not talking about just the atrocities. I'm talking bare economic efficiency

Economic efficiency is literal atrocity. Which is more economically efficient. To responsibly extract resources and pay fair value for it. Or to oppress and steal to obtain resources? Cobalt mining in the Congo as it exists, exists because of economic efficiency. It is advantageous and efficient for the company's buying it that there is no government power there to oppose them. Instead buying from Regional Warlords and child slaves mining it. They don't have to worry about safety regulations etc etc etc or any other externalities of the mining actions. Very efficient. Also an atrocity.

Anarchism is about consent. People can consent to organize. There's nothing prohibiting it. Is it quicker or easier to organize people without their consent by force? Absolutely. Is it good? That's the argument you're making. Might makes right. Brutal, authoritarian dictatorship is very efficient, economic and otherwise. There's a reason people don't like it.

I suggest you actually look into what the ideology of anarchism is. And not just go with the pop culture/ angsty teen definition.

[-] jorp@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

You're conflating organization and collaboration with oppression and hierarchy. It's not "no rules" it's "no rulers" and likewise you don't get your anarchism membership revoked when you hold the door open for someone.

In fact, anarchists are very much about collectivism over individualism. No one is free until everyone is free.

this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
88 points (91.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35681 readers
1470 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS