Anarchy

[CmdrKing]

If they haven't existed in an appreciable scale of time or size, I think you're assuming things if you think they're more capable of resisting authoritarianism. Besides that, I think they still haven't resolved the contradiction of needing something resembling a government to handle the handing out of resources (according to need/labour/etc), and the total rejection of anything resembling a government.

My reasoning is more about how fascism and similar forms of authoritarianism form, because overwhelmingly they usurp existing mechanisms of power, which lets them achieve the appearance of popularity with a much smaller proportion of the population than trying to build an authoritarian movement from scratch.

But I will also freely grant that one form of existing mechanism a fascist can usurp is provisional governments formed in the wake of revolutionary movements (see also Stalin), so it's not like there's some sort of Grand Path to Utopia here. Rather, I think of Anarchy as a theoretical ideal state, and crafting society to more closely resemble that state is the only proper goal we can have whether or not the end state is actually achievable.

(Your other statement is based on an assumption that isn't really falsifiable, that the hoarding of resources and urge toward hierarchy as insolvable aspects of human nature. We could as easily suppose that these things are maladapted remnants of being raised in artificial scarcity and within fierce immovable hierarchies in the first place. But like, you can't *test* either so we'd just be sitting here throwing assumptions and what ifs at one another)

[Draco Dracul]

Anarky lead to facism not freedom in long run

Can you provide an example of that happening? Because historically they arise from liberal democracies and constitutional monarchies.

[Riedquat]

Functioning democracy can only be achieved through anarchism which is why the destruction of anarchists is the one thing that all the great powers can agree on.

Democracy requires compromising and accepting going with the wider consensus. Anarchism doesn't seem to respect that.

A) How is that not compatible with anarchy?
B) How does that describe representative democracy at all where in the broad consensus is thrown out in favor of the wants of the rich? You know because concentrating more power in fewer people makes those people easier to buy.

A) is an odd question to ask - well, actually it seems more like you're just ignoring my question and parroting it back reversed. If you're asking that I wonder if you know what anarchy actually means.

B) That's the old "it ain't perfect but the alternatives are worse" issue with democracy. Yes, it's tended to be too dominated by the wants and needs of the rich, but not exclusively so, everything else is even worse at it. Anarchy will just result in the biggest bullies getting the power. You can avoid that in a small group, where everyone knows everyone else. The dynamics of millions of people are very, very different.

[Madner Kami]

Anarchies are few and far between for a very good reason: All of them collapsed into forms of governments decided by those with the most weapons, largest armies and best military strategies.

[Thebestoftherest]

Anarky lead to facism not freedom in long run

Can you provide an example of that happening? Because historically they arise from liberal democracies and constitutional monarchies.

The Spainish civil war. The after from what I gather was okay while it last, it only lasted until the communist movement came and took over. That the problem it ultimately can't last because some bad person will always comes to take power. It better to ensure that when the person comes we have a better plan than hope we have more guns than him.

https://bigthink.com/the-present/anarchist/

[clearspira]

Anarchies are few and far between for a very good reason: All of them collapsed into forms of governments decided by those with the most weapons, largest armies and best military strategies.

And they're weak to outside threats. How do you maintain a professional standing army with a dedicated logistics and research capability when everyone in your society does what they want?
Answer: you can't.

[Draco Dracul]

A) is an odd question to ask - well, actually it seems more like you're just ignoring my question and parroting it back reversed. If you're asking that I wonder if you know what anarchy actually means.

Anarchy means a like of hierarchy. I would argue that hierarchy is by nature detrimental to democracy as it concentrates power I'm the hands of the few.

B) That's the old "it ain't perfect but the alternatives are worse" issue with democracy. Yes, it's tended to be too dominated by the wants and needs of the rich, but not exclusively so, everything else is even worse at it. Anarchy will just result in the biggest bullies getting the power. You can avoid that in a small group, where everyone knows everyone else. The dynamics of millions of people are very, very different.

I love democracy and think a lot of the problems in our society stem from not having enough of it. That's why I favor anarchism over party vanguardism means to achieve communism.

The biggest bully rules is a description of basically every system other than anarchy and we actually have an example of anarchy working with millions of people in Rojava. We also a it working with hundreds of thousands of people in the Chiapas region of Mexico.

Anarky lead to facism not freedom in long run

Can you provide an example of that happening? Because historically they arise from liberal democracies and constitutional monarchies.

The Spainish civil war. The after from what I gather was okay while it last, it only lasted until the communist movement came and took over. That the problem it ultimately can't last because some bad person will always comes to take power. It better to ensure that when the person comes we have a better plan than hope we have more guns than him.

https://bigthink.com/the-present/anarchist/

You do realize that the fascists were in control of most of the country at the start of the civil war, right? Tjey rapidly deposed the Republic of Spain, which was a liberal democracy.

The anarchists lost while fighting multiple militaries backed by most of the great powers. The liberals also lost despite having significantly more support and having been the previous government.

Also like how do you have an alternative to that, because any institution is ultimately backed by force of arms. If Biden were to go mad and declare himself emperor, it wouldn't matter what the cons says if the military was on his side.

[Frustration]

Anarchy literally means "without archons", which in ancient Greece were people who went about punishing people who didn't follow accepted custom. Police officers are the closest modern equivalent.

It doesn't mean that there are no rules; it doesn't mean that there is no structure to society.

[McAvoy]

Moving away from the current derail. I just want to know exactly how would a government funded college would work.

Public education in the US from K-12 isn't exactly a prime example to copy from either. Far from it.

So, not only do we fix public education but also pretty much increase it? I don't nearly have that much faith in thd US to make that happen. Because the alternative we make college as bad as K-12.

I don't mean quality of educatuon either. I mean underfunding, overcrowding, etc.

[TGLS]

Moving away from the current derail. I just want to know exactly how would a government funded college would work.

Here's how Debt Fixer from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget imagines it:

Offer Free Public College
2032: $590B
2050: 8% in debt/GDP

This option would make four-year public college effectively free by providing grants that cover two-thirds of the cost of tuition, with states making up the remaining third.

It's very much the ultimate in a problem that's resolved by throwing money at it.