i didn’t look to win an argument. it’s obvious capitalism has problems. seemingly needing to be completely upturned every few decades. but my fear was that anarchic systems would either require fighting human nature, which is a non starter, or would require such a small grouping, that the large projects we rely on would no longer be feesable, not to mention that people would also be tied to the land as surfs. the discussion around this critiqued capitalisms monopoly on violence, and i just don’t see any way around needing such a group, such as with North Syria.
Your reply was the first thing I read when I woke up this morning, my reply was the first thing I wrote. Maybe I was too quick to be crestfallen.
I did spend two long paragraphs describing the most common and proven way that anarchism scales. In a way that ties in and leans on some of the best aspects of human nature (Human nature is not a static thing, it’s always contextual and conditional). Hopefully that wasn’t too wordy and winded, I was specifically looking to make it concise while remaining decently foundational.
That organizational model is more than enough to manage the largest projects that anarchism pursues. But anarchism tends to not pursue projects of the same megalithic scale as hierarchical civilization though, as 1) many mega projects tend to be the result of desires for centralization and aggrandizement, either of an individual or an institution and 2) in a word full of hierarchy, anarchism often doesn’t get the room to do so.
I’m not sure where the conception that anarchism ties people to the land like serfs comes from. What leads you to think that? Working anarchism definitely makes people directly responsible for their land and in the consequence of it’s care, but it doesn’t prevent travel or migration. The primary concern of anarchism is autonomy, it’s not anarchism if you can’t leave.
i didn’t look to win an argument. it’s obvious capitalism has problems. seemingly needing to be completely upturned every few decades. but my fear was that anarchic systems would either require fighting human nature, which is a non starter, or would require such a small grouping, that the large projects we rely on would no longer be feesable, not to mention that people would also be tied to the land as surfs. the discussion around this critiqued capitalisms monopoly on violence, and i just don’t see any way around needing such a group, such as with North Syria.
there was no intention to deceive
Your reply was the first thing I read when I woke up this morning, my reply was the first thing I wrote. Maybe I was too quick to be crestfallen.
I did spend two long paragraphs describing the most common and proven way that anarchism scales. In a way that ties in and leans on some of the best aspects of human nature (Human nature is not a static thing, it’s always contextual and conditional). Hopefully that wasn’t too wordy and winded, I was specifically looking to make it concise while remaining decently foundational.
That organizational model is more than enough to manage the largest projects that anarchism pursues. But anarchism tends to not pursue projects of the same megalithic scale as hierarchical civilization though, as 1) many mega projects tend to be the result of desires for centralization and aggrandizement, either of an individual or an institution and 2) in a word full of hierarchy, anarchism often doesn’t get the room to do so.
I’m not sure where the conception that anarchism ties people to the land like serfs comes from. What leads you to think that? Working anarchism definitely makes people directly responsible for their land and in the consequence of it’s care, but it doesn’t prevent travel or migration. The primary concern of anarchism is autonomy, it’s not anarchism if you can’t leave.