flabberghaster

flabberghaster wrote

Reply to comment by nitori in I have not seen a compelling argument for anarchy, or even a description of the future anarchists want by twovests

I know a lot of Marxists love to engage in violent fantasies about what to do about anarchists and ancoms but the end world they both describe is very nebulous. It's not that different, to me.

Having things organized in some way is not against anarchist principles but online Marxists love to talk about purging them and shit idk it's so weird and aggro.

6

flabberghaster wrote

Reply to comment by voxpoplar in I have not seen a compelling argument for anarchy, or even a description of the future anarchists want by twovests

Note that non anarchist philosophies also struggle with the question of "how do we prevent our system from being taken over by the badguys?" Whether it's monarchists saying "this system works great if the monarch is good but the trick is to make sure a doofus doesn't become monarch", or democracies wondering how we can prevent a demagogue from taking power and abolishing the democracy via popular vote. Even communists have the same problem: whatever administration you set up, how do you prevent it from turning itself into something terrible that's bad for people?

So yes, anarchism doesn't solve it but nothing else does either, IMO.

7

flabberghaster wrote

Reply to comment by twovests in I have not seen a compelling argument for anarchy, or even a description of the future anarchists want by twovests

It's more about hierarchical social structures than like... coercing a boss to accept a union. Like you shouldn't have one person in your group who can kick you out or make you do things if you don't want to, or no one should be forced to work a job to make ends meet, through the coercive power of wage labor.

That's not the same as like, you and your co workers getting together and saying if the boss doesn't negotiate we'll go on strike / slash his tires / what have you. That is coercive, in a way, but it's not really the same thing.

4

flabberghaster wrote

Reply to I have not seen a compelling argument for anarchy, or even a description of the future anarchists want by twovests

The idea is kind of two fold I think.

Communists say that After The Revolution™, society eventually becomes a classless, stateless society and everyone just produces for the common good and receives what they need, and there's no need for money to force people to work, nor for guys with sticks to go beat people up.

So even state communists, usually they're saying their authoritarian government is meant as a stepping stone towards that.

Anarchists have the same goal, except they think once you make the state to break up the bourgeoisie, then that state is going to perpetuate itself and you're never going to move beyond it to the better world, so their organizing tends to be based on non hierarchy. Build the world you want to see today, don't build authoritarian structures that are supposed to break down authoritarianism tomorrow.

I don't understand how the monopoly on violence can be abolished, or how it can be prevented from arising again. I don't understand how an anarchist society will have space for the large contingent of people who would want to recreate a hierarchical state with a monopoly on violence.

The idea is, if you had a society where no one had bosses and everyone had their needs already met, and your neighbor Phil showed up and said "we should take over, let's get some guys and make me the king. I'll give you extra food" you wouldn't have any reason to join him because you already have what you need. And of someone started doing that everyone else would just beat him up for trying.

To me, like all utopian ideologies, I see it as more of a north star than a thing you could implement. Ask yourself if you have two choices, which is the less coercive one to get what your org needs done, and that's probably the way to go. It's nebulously defined just as Communism is nebulously defined.

There are good writings on it but I'm not a nerd so I can't think of any off the top of my head sadly.

7

flabberghaster wrote

Reply to A cookie for allies by twovests

I always got the vibe that the scorn was for people who were doing it just to look good but didn't actually care or were fairweather friends. Like, if you're an ally you should be doing it because it's right, not going around bragging about how good you are to those poor, benighted trans people.

On the other hand sometimes people take it a bit far and are dismissive like you say, which I can get, i understand it, I don't think anyone should be too broken up about it. But it does suck to feel like you're trying to do the right thing for someone even though they seem not to really like you very much.

It's complicated I think. It's good to express appreciation for people being with you, but at the same time you don't want to feel like someone is lording something over you.

4

flabberghaster wrote

Reply to comment by devtesla in If you STILL aren't organizing, then you're part of the problem. by cowloom

IDK i read it as a vent post. Shit is so fucked and we do gotta get on it. But at the same time... like seriously what the fuck do we do? So I can understand the "FUCK YOU GET OFF YOUR ASS AND TRY TO HELP STOP THIS" vibe of the post but also that's not really helpful.

I want to be neither condescending nor dismissive. I am 100% with the OP in that things are very urgent. But i'm also like. literally what the hell are we supposed to do that we're not already doing?

I get a little annoyed at the advice you see to "organize." Ok what does that look like? I'm gonna what, start a union? How even. I tried that. I'm terrible at it. I felt like me being involved was just making things harder. What else can I do though? But also like, seriously shit is fucked, we gotta do something.

I'm torn. I'm freaking out. But I literally do not know what to do that would actually help.

6