Why do you believe in it, do you approve it in theory or also in practice? I think a lot of people approve of anarchism in theory but rejects the possibility of it to be put in practice unless we live in an utopia… which I don’t think we do, unfortunately. Maybe techno-anarchism would be more practical? Technology is such badly regulated and ordinary people are punished harsher than corporate so I really think techno-anarchism deserves a lot more attention (not saying anarchism itself doesn’t) I see a lot of people here are more knowledgeable than me so don’t take my word so seriously, maybe I shouldn’t be expressing my idiot thoughts on it, or maybe just embrace it and ask regardless of any shame I might get.

I’m not trying to be mean to anyone, just genuinely wanted to discuss with whoever is willing to chip in on the topic.

  • TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    No such thing as a dumb question!

    Money functions as a points system to facilitate class hierarchy, so I don’t believe money should exist. Social democracies are still capitalist.

    Some people prefer to distinguish “justified” hierarchies, e.g., hierarchies of expertise (like teacher-student type relationships)- i.e., someone being in charge is okay if it’s well justified.

    Others however, like myself, prefer to focus on the underlying power dynamics. I don’t think society or its institutions should ever be granting anyone power over another person

    When I look at these countries you mention, rather than seeing efficient and equal distribution of resources, what I see is a lot of unnecessary mediating factors, embedded in an inherently unjust structure- the state itself. The people there may be relatively happy, but they’re not free

    • glowinfly@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      56 minutes ago

      But it is closer than people living in capitalist countries are, correct? I guess it is sort of a progress at least (if it is, maybe I’m thinking the wrong way?), also do you mean society as a whole as in the whole world to be cashless or countries since it’d be a less radical change, and if so, wouldn’t these cashless societies become targets of the rest of the world? I can’t seem to think a middle way through to reach to that end goal

      • TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 minutes ago

        But it is closer than people living in capitalist countries are, correct?

        Closer to anarchism? I don’t think so. Closer to everyone’s needs being met and having freedom? Yes, I’d say so.

        I guess it is sort of a progress at least (if it is, maybe I’m thinking the wrong way?)

        It sounds like you’re a pragmatist, and that’s valid, but most anarchists are considered idealists, which seems to be where the ‘disconnect’ is (using that term lightly)

        also do you mean society as a whole as in the whole world to be cashless or countries since it’d be a less radical change, and if so, wouldn’t these cashless societies become targets of the rest of the world?

        ‘Idealists’ like myself catch a lot of flak over this exact issue. To me, it’s largely a matter of principle, so I think we should do it anyway. I feel strongly that it isn’t our responsibility to make sure every base is covered before making revolutionary change.

        I believe that hierarchy is bad, so we should get rid of it. Yes, that then makes us a target for new oppressors, but we’re only not a target now because we already have oppressors

        • glowinfly@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 minutes ago

          Interesting points, very nice to get them from someone’s different perspective, thanks.

          ‘Idealists’ like myself catch a lot of flak over this exact issue. To me, it’s largely a matter of principle, so I think we should do it anyway. I feel strongly that it isn’t our responsibility to make sure every base is covered before making revolutionary change.

          I believe that hierarchy is bad, so we should get rid of it. Yes, that then makes us a target for new oppressors, but we’re only not a target now because we already have oppressors

          Let’s say it was done then, how would it avoid being exploitable by those oppressors?