It rules!

Its interesting idea but i wonder if humans are capable of running it beyond so small groups that it wouldnt matter. It would require huge amount of planning and creative thinking to get anarchy working in such way it would benefit everyone and to mitigate its problems.

Then there is also the problem of our current system influencing the new system. Lets say we manage somehow overthrow the current opression and start implementing somekind of anarchy that has been planned in such way it functions beneficially for everyone. By its nature, there couldnt be any authority that defines what anarchy is by its core since it would be up to the people themselves.

I can imagine anarchy easily fragmenting into pieces and then some pieces gaining more support than others and then we would have several competing ideas. Ultimately one would win and others might or might not survive too. And then we would have new ruling system that is probably not anarchy. I dont mean this would happen immediately but eventually. So there would need to be somekind of defensive system against that that would prevent harmful ideas from gaining power, but how to make something like that without it becoming oppressive? And how do you restrict anarchy in the first place since the whole point is there is no central authority? And if you try to have authority that isnt central, you end up with multiple ones that become central authority within their area of influence.

Maybe i'm not as well versed on anarchy as i should to be throwing these thoughts around, but these are some thoughts i have on the subject. As far as i know, anarchism is that people make the rules themselves instead of there being central authority that tells them what to do.

So ultimately anarchism is idea that would require a lot of planning and researching to be even considered worth trying if you want to implement it in controlled way. And i dont see any government allowing such planning to happen since it would be direct threat to them if you manage to create something that is worth trying. And very likely if they still were to allow it, they would just want to influence your work in such way they gain more power from it at the expense of others. And if we had some government that would want it because they want what is good for everyone, then wouldnt that government type be what you wanted to have with anarchy in the first place? Anarchy for sake of itself doesnt seem very useful.

And if you want to implement it "naturally" by just removing all authorities and allowing people to settle things by themselves, i think we can all imagine how that would go.

When I think about it that way, anarchism seems more like "initialization" or starting point where you start building something more complex. Everything we currently have is founded on anarchism afterall, at least i dont think first humans could have had any other system. You cant really hold on to it because it will change either by the people or by the power that wants to preserve it.

Now this turned into kind of an essay

• What led to the Haymarket Massacre, which might have been the main catalyst behind the 8-hour workday... So I cannot hate it out of principle
• Seems reasonable but I don't know how to actually implement it
• For some reason is more associated with Anarcho-Capitalism rather than the other variants, which I thought was... Interesting

At its best it would be the most well functioning democracy possible, at its worst it would give way into centralisation (and infighting)

I don't think anarchist states are impossible, but I do think it wouldn't be as comfortable of a life compared to something more centralised.

Anarchy sounds good to me then someone asks "Who'd fix the sewers?"

edit: This is lyrics from The Dead Kennedy’s “Where Do You Draw the Line?”

A lot of people think it means total chaos, but it really just means an opposition to hierarchy.

People living comfortable lives will rationalize any critique of the system away, even if that comfort is built upon emiseration and exploitation.

ITT: Nobody has any idea what any anarchist philosopher ever said or believed and simply thinks it means no rules

They then strut victoriously, thinking they are smarter than every anarchist philosopher who has ever existed because they know that rules matter in a society, not realizing that no anarchist thinker has ever said "let's just have no rules or organization and just see how it goes based on the vibes"

When I was younger, I believed that it was an ideal worth striving for. Now I don't have that much faith in people anymore and I think that the best you can ask for is to try to live life your way and stay true to your beliefs and morals as best you can, according to whatever circumstances that you've been given.

People calling themselves anarchists seem to reliably be less of a red flag than when they call themselves communists.

I think there's a lot of sentiment to sympathize with and a lot of ideas to learn about.

Implementation of anarchism seems hard and maybe sometimes a bit naïve, but on the other hand I don't actually understand the specifics nor is there any one opinion.

Anarvhism refers to a vlass of ideologies moreso than any one in specific.

I thought it was quite cool when I was a teenager. Then I grew up.

It seems foolish and young to me. Same as libertarian rules or rule by religious doctrine. None of that shit works. Just shiny little playthings to keep people distracted from real and genuine problems that cause an existential threat to all species living on earth.