Genuine question, what happens in an anarchist utopia when your neighbors decide that they like your land? If you fight back en masse, doesn’t that involve creating a military with a hierarchy that’s ripe for seizing power? How can you maintain the social organization for building fighter jets or aircraft carriers or spycraft without those being taken over and used against the people? If you just don’t, what happens when your neighbors are a global superpower that has all that?
It seems even more impractical and idealistic than Communism, which at least has an answer to that.
There’s a lot of questions in there, and I’m genuinely really sorry to say, there’s way more than I can hope to address with the limited amount of time and energy I have, but I think you’re imagining an “anarchist state” or something like that - that’s still thinking with a non-anarchist mindset. There is no country to invade, there’s an amorphous blob of land, which I suppose another nation could attempt to impose itself upon, but in that case, all the working class needs to do is overthrow the new would-be autocracy. Why would a standing military force be more effective than an informal, organized resistance, fighting for their own land? You’re imagining pitched battles and the like, instead imagine trying to occupy land where there’s not really any clear military targets, but everywhere you attempt to impose control, your soldiers end up getting shot, stabbed, or having molatov cocktails thrown on them/their vehicles. Militarism does not protecting the people who live in a country, they’re a tool of the ruling class to fight other nations. This is just my opinion, though - ask ten anarchists, you’ll probably get twenty answers. We believe in creating a better society through consensus, which makes it a little tricky for anarchists to talk about solutions to specific problems on an individual basis.
That makes sense, except that a very simple solution to the “how do I occupy the land” is “kill everyone there”, since an anarchist place thing would most likely have less developped firepower since, like you said, militarism sucks for everyone not on top.
Thing is, I do really agree with the principles of anarchism, and I think we should strive for a greater devolution of power. Just, maybe in a different way than what’s often presented.
If we made an anarchist society and we all get wiped out by genocide, at least we would die as free men and women, fighting for our homes and our lives. In the present we die as slaves and give our lives to increase shareholder value.
People are so scared of uncertainty, and all of these “what if” questions are just thinly veiled fear and insecurity. I get it. But if we want to live in a better world, we need to find the courage to act.
I personally am fully capable of leading a fulfilling life, it’s what I’m doing right now.
I’m not throwing that away to be more “free”, it’s simply not worth the risk for me.
I will work to get my current society towards more like what I want it to be though. Remember, the UK went from absolute monarchy to democracy without a revolution, if they were able to do that it’s possible to do the same with other systems.
Genuine question, what happens in an anarchist utopia when your neighbors decide that they like your land? If you fight back en masse, doesn’t that involve creating a military with a hierarchy that’s ripe for seizing power? How can you maintain the social organization for building fighter jets or aircraft carriers or spycraft without those being taken over and used against the people? If you just don’t, what happens when your neighbors are a global superpower that has all that?
It seems even more impractical and idealistic than Communism, which at least has an answer to that.
There’s a lot of questions in there, and I’m genuinely really sorry to say, there’s way more than I can hope to address with the limited amount of time and energy I have, but I think you’re imagining an “anarchist state” or something like that - that’s still thinking with a non-anarchist mindset. There is no country to invade, there’s an amorphous blob of land, which I suppose another nation could attempt to impose itself upon, but in that case, all the working class needs to do is overthrow the new would-be autocracy. Why would a standing military force be more effective than an informal, organized resistance, fighting for their own land? You’re imagining pitched battles and the like, instead imagine trying to occupy land where there’s not really any clear military targets, but everywhere you attempt to impose control, your soldiers end up getting shot, stabbed, or having molatov cocktails thrown on them/their vehicles. Militarism does not protecting the people who live in a country, they’re a tool of the ruling class to fight other nations. This is just my opinion, though - ask ten anarchists, you’ll probably get twenty answers. We believe in creating a better society through consensus, which makes it a little tricky for anarchists to talk about solutions to specific problems on an individual basis.
I’d recommend you check out the anarchist FAQ if you have more questions - https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.html
That makes sense, except that a very simple solution to the “how do I occupy the land” is “kill everyone there”, since an anarchist place thing would most likely have less developped firepower since, like you said, militarism sucks for everyone not on top. Thing is, I do really agree with the principles of anarchism, and I think we should strive for a greater devolution of power. Just, maybe in a different way than what’s often presented.
If we made an anarchist society and we all get wiped out by genocide, at least we would die as free men and women, fighting for our homes and our lives. In the present we die as slaves and give our lives to increase shareholder value.
People are so scared of uncertainty, and all of these “what if” questions are just thinly veiled fear and insecurity. I get it. But if we want to live in a better world, we need to find the courage to act.
I personally am fully capable of leading a fulfilling life, it’s what I’m doing right now.
I’m not throwing that away to be more “free”, it’s simply not worth the risk for me.
I will work to get my current society towards more like what I want it to be though. Remember, the UK went from absolute monarchy to democracy without a revolution, if they were able to do that it’s possible to do the same with other systems.
None of us are free until all of us are. If you’re happy benefiting from slave labor, I don’t have anything more to say to you.