I think we can look at current and historical examples of people who fought to create or maintain stateless existence, and learn a lot about how to fight asymmetrical warfare against much larger and more powerful foes.
But I also think, in the long run, they won't. States with expansionist te…
I think we can look at current and historical examples of people who fought to create or maintain stateless existence, and learn a lot about how to fight asymmetrical warfare against much larger and more powerful foes.
But I also think, in the long run, they won't. States with expansionist tendencies will always try to invade and conquer their neighbors. So the real victory imo is the extent to which free societies can inspire rebellion in their governed neighbors.
How does this pan out? We all get inspired, rebel against our governments, the governments come crashing down with minimal bloodshed, then we live peaceful lives with no government? Each community lives in peace? No warlords decide to conquer neighboring communes? No evil people?
I read it. It sounds amazing and yet completely and utterly naive.
I believe we can achieve maybe even 75% of what you want, but not through an anarchist revolution of community communes. I really don't think you're accounting enough for human nature. There will always be greedy people, evil people, etc. You have to have a government with a monopoly on violence to counteract the fringe bad guys. Through better and more government we can achieve a lot of what you want and I'm all for post capitalism, but it's so unlikely to be achieved via communist revolution. My bet is on AI.
on the contrary, i think anarchy is the only approach that accounts for human nature. it works both ways: if humans are basically good, than we can trust ourselves and each other to handle our own affairs. we don't need to be governed. but if people are basically bad, then we should not trust people with the power to govern other people, because of course someone will eventually abuse that power. (and right now it's more like everywhere/always, not eventually!)
This is where I still struggle. I don't think people are inherently either good or bad. There are people who are good and there are people who are bad. And all it takes is one person who wants to take over the world and anarchy doesn't exist!
It's very hard for me to imagine an anarchist future, as much as the thought is personally appealing at times. I feel like an anarchist future doesn't account enough for warlords, racists, greedy people, etc..
I'll keep reading your stuff, I think you have some good thoughts though.
That's the million dollar question right there.
I think we can look at current and historical examples of people who fought to create or maintain stateless existence, and learn a lot about how to fight asymmetrical warfare against much larger and more powerful foes.
But I also think, in the long run, they won't. States with expansionist tendencies will always try to invade and conquer their neighbors. So the real victory imo is the extent to which free societies can inspire rebellion in their governed neighbors.
How does this pan out? We all get inspired, rebel against our governments, the governments come crashing down with minimal bloodshed, then we live peaceful lives with no government? Each community lives in peace? No warlords decide to conquer neighboring communes? No evil people?
Good question! I wrote a post that answers it in some detail:
https://open.substack.com/pub/anarchyemergencelove/p/how-we-saved-the-world-from-underground
I read it. It sounds amazing and yet completely and utterly naive.
I believe we can achieve maybe even 75% of what you want, but not through an anarchist revolution of community communes. I really don't think you're accounting enough for human nature. There will always be greedy people, evil people, etc. You have to have a government with a monopoly on violence to counteract the fringe bad guys. Through better and more government we can achieve a lot of what you want and I'm all for post capitalism, but it's so unlikely to be achieved via communist revolution. My bet is on AI.
on the contrary, i think anarchy is the only approach that accounts for human nature. it works both ways: if humans are basically good, than we can trust ourselves and each other to handle our own affairs. we don't need to be governed. but if people are basically bad, then we should not trust people with the power to govern other people, because of course someone will eventually abuse that power. (and right now it's more like everywhere/always, not eventually!)
This is where I still struggle. I don't think people are inherently either good or bad. There are people who are good and there are people who are bad. And all it takes is one person who wants to take over the world and anarchy doesn't exist!
Right, that's where I gotta do my digging... Never enough time!
It's very hard for me to imagine an anarchist future, as much as the thought is personally appealing at times. I feel like an anarchist future doesn't account enough for warlords, racists, greedy people, etc..
I'll keep reading your stuff, I think you have some good thoughts though.