I would say it isn’t broken, but working exactly as intended

Dang, that sucks! Thanks for looking though, and good job finding where you originally saw it.

Anarchism is inherently socialist. With all due respect, I would encourage you to learn more, by asking questions rather than assuming your pre-conceived notions are correct.

I also mentioned elsewhere the Zapatistas is a functioning anarchist society with hundreds of thousands of people living in it. There is a sign outside Zapatista territory which reads, in Spanish, “You are in Zapatista rebel territory. Here the people command and the government obeys.”

Do you give a shit or not? I will happily discuss anything you want with you but you’ve made it pretty clear that you aren’t arguing in good faith. Take a minute, recognize that I am not the enemy, calm down, take some deep breaths, maybe go out into that beautiful Danish countryside, and maybe come back with a curious perspective, rather than an oppositional one, and I will chat the night away with you.

I don’t really give a shit about your point

Yet you asked me to explain a very complex topic, just for you. Curious!

Well, first off, ignorance, selfishness, and susceptibility to manipulation aren’t fixed traits, they’re produced and reinforced by hierarchical systems - states, corporations, mainstream media, etc. In other words, people behave the way they’re incentivized and conditioned to behave. Luckily, even if people are stupid and selfish, this system has a lot of safeguards, far more than representative democracy. I’ll explain:

A consensus-based decision making system does a great deal to prevent these issues. Under representative democracy, individuals have almost no influence. They don’t necessarily have to engage with - or even hear out - the opinions of everyone in a discussion. Political engagement is very low under representative democracy, but under a consensus system, necessarily, people need to engage to participate.

That engagement would mean that people have to hear out all voices in a debate, so they’d inherently become more informed on the facts. Additionally, this approach also adds social responsibility, since you’re not just casting a single vote, but need to confront your neighbors and discuss with them, meaning selfishness would also be counteracted through that social accountability.

Finally, anarchists are in favor of decentralized decision making. Instead of one big system where half the population can mess things up, anarchists work to build many small, autonomous groups, which are loosely coordinated and work together, with decisions made locally and then bubble up, rather than made centrally and imposed down. That way, even if one group makes bad decisions, it doesn’t drag everyone else down

Ah, I see, you’re struggling to debate my ideas on the merits, so you’re resorting to wasting my time. I’m not interested in childish games, I am trying to save lives here. I can lead you to water, whether you drink or not is entirely your prerogative. All the best!

Which one? They all work for me

Socialism is, by definition, social ownership of the means of production. That means instead of wealthy private individuals owning, for example, factories and hotels, the factories and the hotels are instead collectively owned and controlled - perhaps by everyone in society, perhaps by those who work there.

You are asking me, how would socialism lead to socialism.

why would that automatically lead to socialism, and be better than what we have in Scandinavian countries?

No bosses. No exploitation for profit. No pedophile billionaires fucking everyone over. Equality for all. No wage slavery. Unpleasant working conditions would be minimized. Democratization of the workplace.

And exactly what kind of socialism would it lead to?

It’s really important to emphasize that anarchism isn’t some blueprint for a society that we follow by rote and dogmatically implement, but rather a base layer of ideas we can use. As per an anarchist FAQ

Anarchists have always been reticent about spelling out their vision of the future in too much detail for it would be contrary to anarchist principles to be dogmatic about the precise forms the new society must take. Free people will create their own alternative institutions in response to conditions specific to their area as well as their needs, desires and hopes and it would be presumptuous of us to attempt to set forth universal policies in advance.

You are talking like a Russian agent trying to sow discourse.

Uhm… Russia isn’t socialist, mate. They’re very, very capitalist. Discourse is good. You might be thinking of discord. I’m just a gay autistic furry trying to make the world a better place.

What you suggest has no evidence of working.

That’s actually not true at all, neither historically nor in the present. The Zapatista movement is an example of an anarchist society with hundreds of thousands of individuals living under it, in Mexico. For a historical example, you might be interested to read about revolutionary Spain.

How would you run a country based on a principle that wouldn’t even work for a small city?

There are lots and lots of examples of this working in practice! I mentioned two above, but an anarchist FAQ has lots more answers for you.

Much of Europe is social democratic, and that actually works very well by regulating capitalism to prevent exploitation.

As a European, lmao, no. It’s better than fascist America, no doubt, but there is still plenty of exploitation under social democracy.

European society is also sliding towards fascism, with the exact same causes as in America. The far right is on the rise everywhere because of cost of living outpacing wages, public services increasingly under more and more pressure with less and less funding, and massive, rampant inequality caused by the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

I am an anarchist. If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think. I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.

Deafboy said the exact same thing 13 hours before you did. You can read my reply there.

I generally agree, that’s why I am an anarchist - If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think. I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.

That episode demonstrates not that the Simpsons is prophetic, as some like to claim, but for how long the two-party system and electoral politics has failed to produce not solutions to the problems we face.

It’s tempting to feel next election will be different, but it probably won’t be. We need to force the system to change, outside of electoral politics, or be trapped forever in this endless cycle.

That’s a shame, but I totally understand, appreciate it!

Lock her up. No mercy for genocide supporters. Put her and Biden on trial for crimes against humanity.

How dare you?! Under my false dichotomy, a comparatively small amount of harm would be prevented over the short term. It doesn’t matter about long term outcomes because I decided. I shall end with an ad-hominem attack and if you make me confront the reality of my position I will block you because that makes me uncomfortable. Don’t you even dare think about making any analogies or comparing to any historical examples of persecution. That is deeply offensive when it contradicts my pre-existing beliefs.

He is a fucking rapist, no question about it. Multiple accounts from multiple women and they seem highly credible to me.

I love this, do you know who the artist is?

Mainstream democrats are far more interested in securing donations from lobbies, corporations and the wealthy than they are with preventing fascism and genocide. Electoral politics doesn’t seem to be a solution. We need to consider other options.