Do US anarchists want a failed state?

[Zardnaar]

I wonder if there would be more conflict or less if countries with antagonistic tribes were broken up to reflect their traditional lands.

Probably more. I've seen a map where Africa is broken up along tribal lines. The states are to small and would lack resources to exist as viable nation's.

That's assuming the tribes would co exist peacefully. Ethnic lines might work better but the stronger tribes would still dominate one way or another.

 

[Zardnaar]

But Anarchy as ideological system is not as simple as vacuum of power or impotency of government power that lead to chaos and unrest. It's an ideology that community can work with greater dynamic without government.

It's not the "embrace the chaos" villain type of ideology, it's coming from the good intention that government all the time fooling and sucking the community, and community will be better and able to sustained itself without government, it's believe that way we were back to where we were back then, a communal society.

Kind of but it's an ideal. I can't see it working large scale and you can already do it small scale. Foreign government's would take advantage if nothing else.

 

[Berzerker]

I thought maybe more conflict because nation states would be based on an us & them dynamic instead of ethnic melting pots. Harder to attack your neighbor when they're kinsmen to a large chunk of your own country. Otoh how many invasions began with the excuse of protecting those kinsmen? Putin went into Crimea and E Ukraine based on tribalism, the Ukrainians were mistreating ethnic Russians.

 

[H4run]

Kind of but it's an ideal. I can't see it working large scale and you can already do it small scale. Foreign government's would take advantage if nothing else.

I agree it wouldn't work, but nevertheless it's coming from a good intention. That's why it's an utopia.

 

[Zardnaar]

I agree it wouldn't work, but nevertheless it's coming from a good intention. That's why it's an utopia.

Yeah I'm not a fan of Communism for example. But I can understand it's appeal in 1917 or when Marx wrote it in a similar time to Dickens.

 

[H4run]

Yeah I'm not a fan of Communism for example. But I can understand it's appeal in 1917 or when Marx wrote it in a similar time to Dickens.

Because our hard-work get taken and alienated from us is a fact? and that verified the class struggle that Marx mentioned? Basically as a doctor Marx have an accurate diagnoses, but his treatment though is not really working. So there's a good reason to be appeal by it.

 

[cardgame]

The appeal and the reason for it (material conditions) hasn't changed, only the perception of the end result due to authoritarian abuses. Which is half the reason why socialism is finally gaining some traction in the US and UK, USSR has never been alive in my lifetime. We are not taken in by Cold War propaganda and no living example of "communism evil!" exists. DPRK is hereditary despotism or something, China is state capitalist, Cuba is suffering from a half century of economic warfare that can be laid at the feet of the US, not from Cuba's own shortcomings however valid they may be. Venezuela is an oil-state with less communal ownership than Norway, famously capitalist country. Bolivia was poor but making incredible progress, now it's been couped and native groups are being massacred by theocratic thugs.

 

[Zardnaar]

Because our hard-work get taken and alienated from us is a fact? and that verified the class struggle that Marx mentioned? Basically as a doctor Marx have an accurate diagnoses, but his treatment though is not really working. So there's a good reason to be appeal by it.

Yeah pretty much. If the gap between rich and poor is to great or if there's not much upward mobility that's a problem.

 

[Patine]

2.6 million internaly displaced Somalians beg to disagree with you on that point

along with OCHA, The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs along with Human rights watch

The northern most parts of Somalia are governed and relatively stable, and the only parts of the country that have actually held elections since the 1980's. HOWEVER, they've formally declared themselves the two separate, de facto independent and self-governing, but internationally-unrecognized nations of Somaliland and Puntland, because being politically attached the horrid mess in the southern and central parts of the country has become a real burden and problem for them.

 

[Zardnaar]

The appeal and the reason for it (material conditions) hasn't changed, only the perception of the end result due to authoritarian abuses. Which is half the reason why socialism is finally gaining some traction in the US and UK, USSR has never been alive in my lifetime. We are not taken in by Cold War propaganda and no living example of "communism evil!" exists. DPRK is hereditary despotism or something, China is state capitalist, Cuba is suffering from a half century of economic warfare that can be laid at the feet of the US, not from Cuba's own shortcomings however valid they may be. Venezuela is an oil-state with less communal ownership than Norway, famously capitalist country. Bolivia was poor but making incredible progress, now it's been couped and native groups are being massacred by theocratic thugs.

Problem with Communist theory vs practice is you can't really do it without enforcing it. You can kind of do it small scale like an Israeli kibbutz.

Village life was more communal once upon a time but that changed around 18th century.

Right vs left is really the modern rich vs poor. You can fight it out in the ballot box or battle field. The latter tends to get a lot of people killed and the winners dump on the losers for a generation or 3.

If you waved a magic wand and everyone had an equal amount of resources you would have mass starvation in a few months.

 

[Patine]

Problem with Communist theory vs practice is you can't really do it without enforcing it. You can kind of do it small scale like an Israeli kibbutz.

Village life was more communal once upon a time but that changed around 18th century.

Right vs left is really the modern rich vs poor. You can fight it out in the ballot box or battle field. The latter tends to get a lot of people killed and the winners dump on the losers for a generation or 3.

If you waved a magic wand and everyone had an equal amount of resources you would have mass starvation in a few months.

Of course, the problem with Capitalist theory vs. practice is that the theory is that hard work, skilled endeavours, and way of the self-made businessperson are the paths to wealth and that ANYONE who puts in the work and effort, and works opportunities can become wealthy and successful. The practice is, the rich, who are already, keep themselves rich, run their corporate empires like feudal fiefdoms, bribe the government to immensely favour them or anyone else, walk all over their employers and thoroughly cheat their consumers to jack up artificial profit margins, and anyone else who becomes rich usually does so because someone who is already filthy rich promotes them, or they gain success in niche industry, because rising competition in mainstream industries are stomped low to the ground...

 

[H4run]

Right vs left is really the modern rich vs poor.

But wait a minute, I think the "right ideology" may now appealed more to the poor rural area depend on which country we are talking, because it mostly promises a clear battle against a valid alien common enemy, and an instant and most importantly non "commie" solution.

While the "left" despite its policy more concern for the interest of the rural voters, seems to be more popular among the sympathetic and humanist urban voters, at least if we are talking about America and some place in Europe that have a huge anti immigrant propaganda.

Am I wrong? This is not the Jacobite vs Monarchy, or Bourgeois vs proletariat any longer. This is the main confusion of @aelf and his "Republican voter" thread. Things seems to be not that simple now.

 

[Zardnaar]

But wait a minute, I think the "right ideology" may now appealed more to the poor rural area depend on which country we are talking, because it mostly promises a clear battle against a valid alien common enemy, and an instant and most importantly non "commie" solution.

While the "left" despite its policy more concern for the interest of the rural voters, seems to be more popular among the sympathetic and humanist urban voters, at least if we are talking about America and some place in Europe that have a huge anti immigrant propaganda.

Am I wrong? This is not the Jacobite vs Monarchy, or Bourgeois vs proletariat any longer. This is the main confusion of @aelf and his "Republican voter" thread. Things seems to be not that simple now.

In US terms maybe. That's an unholy alliance there.

Rural areas tend to export their unemployed to the city. So they don't really want to pay tax to social services in the city.

In the city the top 30% tend to vote right wing for tax cuts. Not all of them it's often around 70%.

Even in a functioning proportional voting system like here in NZ you still get a drift towards the middle so you avoid the extreme left/right.

To make anarchy work you would need something like NZ culture imposed on the rest of the world. I don't see that working.

Canadians might be another option.

 

[Patine]

But wait a minute, I think the "right ideology" may now appealed more to the poor rural area depend on which country we are talking, because it mostly promises a clear battle against a valid alien common enemy, and an instant and most importantly non "commie" solution.

While the "left" despite its policy more concern for the interest of the rural voters, seems to be more popular among the sympathetic and humanist urban voters, at least if we are talking about America and some place in Europe that have a huge anti immigrant propaganda.

Am I wrong? This is not the Jacobite vs Monarchy, or Bourgeois vs proletariat any longer. This is the main confusion of @aelf and his "Republican voter" thread. Things seems to be not that simple now.

Shhh… A lot of posters on these forums still insist on keeping everything on dumbed-down, oversimplified, absolutist binary levels of ideology for everything, and become offended, angry, self-righteous, and downright insulting to anyone who points out the much more complex realities of things. I know this well...

Moderator Action: Keep it on topic and stop attacking other posters. --LM

 

[Zardnaar]

Shhh… A lot of posters on these forums still insist on keeping everything on dumbed-down, oversimplified, absolutist binary levels of ideology for everything, and become offended, angry, self-righteous, and downright insulting to anyone who points out the much more complex realities of things. I know this well...

It's not an academic paper.

Very broadly a lot of arguements around here boil down to how resources are distributed.

Most people here right or left or whatever are not big fans of corporations. That's a start.

Most are intelligent enough to identify the problems, but the solution is what people argue over.

More equal sharing of resources is basically the answer IMHO. How to get there idk and what's achievable are 3 different things.

 

[Estebonrober]

Republicans are the villainous anarchist types dismantling the state as much as necessary to extract 3 more percent return this year. They will use state power when it is necessary but would rather drown it in a bath tub if it's not taking out pipeline protesters.

 

[Estebonrober]

Shhh… A lot of posters on these forums still insist on keeping everything on dumbed-down, oversimplified, absolutist binary levels of ideology for everything, and become offended, angry, self-righteous, and downright insulting to anyone who points out the much more complex realities of things. I know this well...

So sanctimonious.

 

[H4run]

Republicans are the villainous anarchist types dismantling the state as much as necessary to extract 3 more percent return this year. They will use state power when it is necessary but would rather drown it in a bath tub if it's not taking out pipeline protesters.

Literally every kind of voter that give their vote because of their appealed to the far right rhetoric, actually Trump's rhetoric is pretty much using the same pattern like Golden Dawn in Greek, The Swedish "Democrat" or Geert Wilders' Party of Freedom in Netherlands, Trump pretty much use the Ultra-Nationalist trend to lift him up. I think this is what "Makes America Great Again" suggested, it's read by other as a "War Declaration" to certain alien entity within the nation.

 

[aelf]

I don't understand why this thread's title is about "US anarchists". I guess anarchists do want a failed state in that, if their actions in order to achieve their goals were successful, the state would most likely fail - and they probably know that. Nothing particularly American about it.

 

[cardgame]

I don't understand why this thread's title is about "US anarchists". I guess anarchists do want a failed state in that, if their actions in order to achieve their goals were successful, the state would most likely fail - and they probably know that. Nothing particularly American about it.

You don't understand it's a mockery of the "US Republicans want a failed state" thread?