No. But I bet I could. After all, prisoners do it every day.

I don’t need it. I like it. While I have it I’ll use it. but I don’t need it. The only things I need are water, food, shelter, and companionship. Everything else is just extra. Good to have, but not a necessity.

read until the end of the sentence silly.

I don’t need the internet (or any computer) to be comfortable. In fact It really is a lot more bother than it’s worth. I just use it because there’s not much else to do.

Also I already have a computer. I don’t need another one. and even if I would do you know how many computers are in that 20km radius? because I’m pretty sure it’s at least 100.

By the way I’m also a programmer. I spent the entirety of my teenage life learning how to make computers do things because I think they’re neat. The internet has changed my life and given me a meaning and a purpose. It’s really useful. But I could do without it. Would probably even be happier because I would actually meet people.

Weak and strong. I’ve given a lot of thought to those words. What is strength? Is it how well hard you can punch? Because in the rule of brutality a lot of the times it’s not the ones that are physically strongest that are at the top. It’s the ones that can convince the strong ones to listen to them. The one who commands most authority. But that’s just one way of doing things. You can also build structures of mutual interdependence that cannot function unless both/all parties contribute. Deny people the right to create archic structures.

But anyway back to strength. The alt-right playbook had an episode about how conservatives think “there’s always a bigger fish” I believe it was called. It basically stated that conservatives believe in a single pyramid of power the strong are at the top and the weak at the bottom. They think this is natural. That any kind of help towards others is wrong because it could but them on the wrong level. But everyone is strong in different ways. There isn’t one single measurement of human competence. You can’t even quantify a single attribute like intelligence even though people have tried, every IQ test is nonsense as the result is mostly dependent on what skills you learned, what cultural space you’re from and how well you can pay attention.

I think that a different way of looking at this is that everyone qualities. Some people are better at one thing at other people are better at another thing. When working together everyone’s good skills offset other peoples bad skills. (This is the primary reason why I need to find someone capable of condensely writing who can understand me). Everything that you are weak at can be offset by someone who is good at it. This is how I see the world. However this goes completely against the archic view of the world which seems to be built on the idea that some people are inherently better than others and therefore deserve to lead.

I know most of this talk is uselessly philosophical. In practice the most likely outcome of chaos is that whoever is capable of projecting most fear will get the most people to follow them which in turn will make them the new ruler.

Also there is a cruel part in me that keeps saying “if they’re too weak to survive they don’t deserve to live”, but I mostly ignore that using the same reasoning as above.

Humanity was evolved enough to live in without hierarchy a couple hundred years ago. That hasn’t changed. We just have a couple of centuries of idiots telling us that they were “primitive” but what could those societies have accomplished if they weren’t mowed down in the name of PROGRESS what would a tribe look like if they had an electric generator. Would they immediately elect a president? Probably not. But they would figure out how to make a lightbulb. Technological progress is possible without hierarchy.

People seem to think that when civilisation collapses everything resets. But that’s not how it works. The building will still be here. The libraries will still exist. And it’s a lot more likely that whoever gets control of them will do their best to conserve the books. Even if the world powers nuke the shit out of themselves, enough humans will survive and at one of them will know the value of books. We can’t go back to the stone age. We can’t forget modern medicine.

I don’t want global famine and more wars but people seem insistent on creating them so I’m not going to pretend like I can stop them, I’m also not going to pretend like they (the people in power and those who allow them to remain there) somehow aren’t responsible. As for the collapse of Civilization: here’s another video youtube.com/watch?v=k0_w87J9Dj0. If you don’t want to watch. I’ll just ask you one of the main questions of the video: “what is the meaning of civilisation?”. Who does it benefit and why do we need it?

I don’t want people to suffer. Right now they are. This civilisation is making them suffer. If we could get rid of the poison of archy that plagues this civilisation without destroying it I would be grateful. But the lack of resources is not an issue. It’s a symptom of mindless consumerism and rampant capitalism. If capitalism goes, so does the scarcity.

My belief is that every person is good, kind-hearted and capable of incredible things. My belief is that greed, cruelty, and everything else that is turning this planet into hell is the fault of the systems we are raised in, the motivations we are given, and how we are treated. If this civilisation ends I won’t care. The cruelty it so efficiently creates has made sure of that. But I’m also don’t actively wish for it because I know it’ll still cause a lot of pain. The only world I’m willing to fight for is one where the power structures that allow idiots to destroy the world don’t exist.

Also I think civilisation is a lot stronger than people think. Humans are incredibly strong and capable beings. It’s going to take more than the collapse of capitalism (currently synonymous with economy) to destroy civilisation, but then again nukes exist. oh well whatever happens, happens. Not like we had any hope of seeing 2040 anyway.

I can get everything I need to comfortably live from a 20km radius, or I could If my country hadn’t outsourced clothes production to china. why does my life need to rely on a regime that’s half the planet away while destroying the said planet in the process?

Right you got me thinking so here’s my thoughts. Not looking to argue just discuss the points you’ve made.

1st paragraph:

Global economy crashing is a good thing. Like you have pointed out it is completely dependent on a non-renewable resource on top of that it is one of the biggest contributors to worldwide exploitation. It also a contributes to cultural colonialism.
more info: youtube.com/watch?v=4UJSf_oyVAo.

When it comes to farming. People will come up with solutions. I believe that farmers are competent enough that when we run out of oil they aren’t just going to go. “welp guess I starve now”. They are going to innovate and do what they can to keep going. Also swapping out an ICE motor for an electric one doesn’t seem that complicated.

Also Interesting that you didn’t mention plastics. The most used oil product in the world. I’ll be so glad when they’re finally gone.

2nd paragraph is just a continuation of the first.

3rd paragraph

The key word in this paragraph is make. We don’t really need to make any more electronics. We’ve already made enough. How many processors do you think are just sitting in some warehouse never to be used because a newer model came out. How much of those precious metals are inside cars that are going to be useless once oil runs out. We need to focus on recycling and reusing existing things and devices instead of making new ones.

4th paragraph

Water is a cycle. It doesn’t just disappear. We already recycle most of our water. Although I’m not that knowledgable on the topic so I can’t say much about it.

5th paragraph

skip.

6th paragraph

The scientific community has made those assertions with the assumption that we are going to keep doing what we’re doing. Mindless consumerism, buying and making new things, and abusing our planet. And they are right. What I and the commenter you’re replying to are (probably) saying is that the problems with resources are caused my how we live our lives and the problem disappears without capitalism, consumerism and the constant resource abuse they create. A more sustainable shift in society and economics will solve these problems

Also

I sidestepped you’re points about money, because I am an anarchist. I see capitalism and money as the precise reason for this artificial scarcity and natural abuse. Like you even said in you’re comment even if we get infinite resources in the form of asteroid mining it still won’t be distributed properly due to monopolies. Having more resources won’t fix anything because the problem is the market that distributes them being inefficient due to running entirely on profit motive. The solution is to end capitalism and when we do we are going to find that we have more than enough without needing to do asteroid mining. Where would we even get the fuel? doesn’t that require oil?

Was inspired by the article to draw this. Sadly It doesn’t make much sense without context.

Anti-statism. Anarchism is against all hierarchy. Including class.

“Hi! You’re on a rock floating in space.”

Interestingly you can believe that hierarchy is natural and still be a leftist, because coercive hierarchies (such as capitalist or the state) that the left is against prevent these natural hierarchies from emerging. The problem with the right is that they have a model of society in their mind and think that any divergence isn’t natural and must be fixed (by either capitalism or the state). While the left understands that there is no reason some people can’t be in power and so want’s to equalize the playing field.

Human beings aren’t made equally and there will always be some hierarchy in human society. Leftists just want to give everyone the opportunity to rise up the ranks instead of just the “right” people. That is why everyone must be treated equally you don’t know where they exist in the hierarchy.

Technically there isn’t a single social hierarchy. But multiple overlapping ones. Some people are better in some things and other are better in other things. Saying that everyone is equal is too simplified. Society is more complex than that.

But as a generalization (especially when compared to the right) it is correct.

I do not want an anarchist revolution that forces anarchy onto the entire society. That would not work. The people wouldn’t accept it. I want a system where anarchism can be implemented alongside other systems so everyone, me included, can find their spot, their best way to live. I do not think everyone is an anarchist, and can live in an anarchist system. People have different values and those values impact their politics. I just want a space where anarchy can exist without being destroyed. If a person is fine working 9-5 for 5 days a week for just enough money to pay rent, buy food and maybe sometimes some clothes then that’s fine. I would rather die.

The entire first two paragraphs of your statement is exactly what the CCP and USSR attempted to set up but it failed miserably due to efficiency issues, They then consolidated in to sudo fascism. How many attempts do you need to see that people in aggregate cannot form that level of trust in society or social engagement?

I do not believe that’s what the USSR was trying to do, but because I wasn’t there I cannot say for certain. All I can say is that if they did try to do it they failed to stop authoritarians getting to power and that was on them, not on the ideology. If you try to force a bunch of people who do not care about running their own lives and give them the power to run their own lives they will walk up to the first person telling them what to do and mindlessly do it. This is why an anarchist revolution has to be cultural as well as political. People need to want it, otherwise they won’t get it.

A hundred years have past since then. Humanity has gone from an agrarian society to a post-industrial (robots) society. I think the circumstances have changed enough to make any assumptions based on past revolutions inaccurate.

Anarchism does not provide robust power to protect minorities so it does not matter if it does not allow discrimination, it cannot prevent it

The community prevents it. If someone is acting like a dick people come together and deal with it. Together. Anarchism does not provide this power because it is up to the community to decide how it works.

Okay, how to I even begin. I’m going to start with a Thank You! This comment has made me think about a lot of different aspects of my Ideology and I am genuinely grateful that your comment initiated that. Ensuring clearer understanding of my ideology is very important to me.

Let’s start with the easy response. The final statement of my previous comment was very absolute.

if you remove all of the things from capitalism that make it incompatible you will end up with anarchy.

I now see that was a mistake. What I should have said instead was that it would make it more anarchistic, and you have confirmed this by suggesting methods that I believe are anarchistic. All the steps have the purpose of lessening the power structures of current society and if I would have to think about how to transition a capitalist society into an anarchist society I imagine I would come up with similar steps.

Therefor I support this “small capitalism”. I see it as a stepping stone towards anarchism, because it is moving in the right direction. It just doesn’t go far enough. You seem to be okay with money as a concept (and maybe wage slavery unless it falls under “equity of at the lowest levels”), I am not. I think that as long as money is a necessity to live you have the means through witch you can coerce others and remove these freedoms and safeguards put in place so in the end you will have just capitalism. Cruel, unjust and uncaring capitalism.

Removing money does not prevent against this, because anarchism also requires a lot of oversight to prevent collapsing. Money is just another vector of collapse that capitalism has. Also unlike anarchism, capitalism also does not have oversight of society by all members of society. This is the cultural anarchism I am talking about. Anarchists have no representative democracy, No political laziness. Everyone has a voice and you can’t give your voice to someone else. All the individuals are collectively in charge of everything that happens in their commune, and the society is nothing more than a collection of communes.

I also believe both can coexist. Nothing about anarchism prevents collaboration with other political systems. In fact I believe that an anarchist society must have good relations with a neighboring capitalist system to survive, because otherwise the capitalists in the system have nowhere to go and will rebel, the other society functions like an overflow pipe. Also the effect works reversed as well.

Anarchism does not allow for discrimination. All forms of discrimination are antithetical to anarchism.

Also I would like to address the in anarchism capitalism is dissent argument. Is fascism dissent? or theocracy? because from an anarchist point of view all those are coercive unjust power structures, that should be dismantled. They are authoritarian and oppressive. anarchy does not allow capitalism of this. It is the same logic as the paradox of tolerance, but also I do not believe alternative systems should not be allowed to exists. as long as they respect our right to independence and self-determination I have no problem with alternate political systems existing, only if they are unreasonably oppressive (including genocidal).

I could also talk about economics but I think this comment is already long enough.

I thank you for the detailed answer. It is going to take me time to properly think about everything you have said. I will get back to you when I have finished thinking about it. You have definitely given me lots to think about and I thank you for it.

But one thing I will say is that I am talking about cultural anarchism instead of economical one. such a culture needs time to grow and a few months of economic decentralization is a god start anarchism requires a lot more than that.

EDIT: You just might have triggered a massive change in how I perceive politics. Thank You!

I did not claim that anarchist societies did not have internal problems, I said that anarchist societies have ended because of external problems. Internal problems exists but they aren’t fatal. The USSR and CCP were not anarchist. The economy may have functioned anarchically for a couple of months but the people were not anarchists and the ones that took power were vanguardists (because they usurped the previous state and used it to repress the population).

Also I am interested to know how anarchy, the system that is inherently based on dissent, does not allow dissent. Anarchy is only dissent. There isn’t a single anarchist ideology. Anarchy is a way of thought that rejects the idea of conformity and it being a “single party system” is an insane thing to suggest.

The last thing I want to do is cause harm. I belie this society is possible but I do not want it implemented unless I know it can survive in a humane way. This is ideology it is the long term goals that we set for ourselves so we have something to strive for. This change should only happen if the people are ready for it. If they believe it. I think that any society that humans can imagine can exists as long as all the individuals in that society want it to.

My worldview does not cause less harm than any of the current ones. All of the points that you but forward come from the lack of faith in the system, or more accurately the people that make up the system. My ideology is based on the fact that people can be good, kind and selfless and the only thing stopping entire society from being those things is because our natural kindness gets destroyed by the current culture. I understand that this might be a naive thing to think but the world is currently ending (because of the “less harmful ideologies”) so being naive and hopeful is the best thing I can do.

I am an anarchist because It is a society build on human interaction, kindness, friendliness, acceptance and tolerance. That is what my anarchy is. people existing for the sake of their friends and neighbors. If you can show me another ideology that has all of that I am eager to listen. because those things are antithetical to capitalism, and if you remove all of the things from capitalism that make it incompatible you will end up with anarchy.

I am not against hierarchies if they are justified. The hierarchies that are democratic and non-coercive are acceptable.

Power should not be consolidated, it should be distributed among the population. Any sort of consolidation of power opens the door for people to create systems and hierarchies that maintain power unjustly.

I think that if a society is capable of working in a smaller scale it can be scaled up. Especially with the technology that we have today.

I don’t think that anarchism is unsustainable. all attempts to create anarchist societies have ended because of outside factors (invasions). I don’t see these as shortcomings of anarchism but instead as shortcomings of other systems to tolerate alternate political systems. Also if an anarchist society descends into fascism (red or otherwise) then that is because the people didn’t do enough to oppose it.

I also apologize if some of these statements are short. You can’t unbind ctrl+w to close the window on firefox and I use it to delete the last word so I accidentally deleted my previous two attempts to answer this comment.

Also I appreciate this conversation as it requires me to think through my ideology.

The governing core is the society. If they say no then that society changes. That is how the system works. The people decide how to live their life and if they don’t want to live a certain way they change. As long as the people stay skeptical of all authority the system works. If they don’t it collapses into a class based society.

You don’t need perfect reprogramming. You just need a couple of people who want to live this way and let them live.

Anarchism works. The systems that I am describing have been successfully implemented and work.

What are you trying to say here?

the most dependable members become a governing core.

Yes, and that governing core does not have complete authority over the village, They are trusted members of the community and if they abuse their powers they get removed.

This is exactly the kind of order you want. The people that have put the most effort into the community naturally want what’s best for that community, and if they are trusted that means they are more likely to be kind and nice people and not greedy.

what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don’t deserve all of their land?

The best option is for village A to send a delegation to B and voice their concerns. After which village B decides what to do.

Just like people do not need to be governed, groups (in this conversation villages) do not as well. They should have enough common sense to do things peacefully because if they become hostile all the other groups band together to oppose them. The same dynamics are at play.