Maybe there’s just increasingly less good places on the internet to discuss anarchy or I continue the grave mistake to pop into anarchist subreddits.
Why?
I don’t know. If it isn’t apparent by how I write my other pieces, my audience is often a mix of me trying to get my thoughts out to anarchists, non-anarchists, etc, but address each audience individually and together which creates weird tones at times. I don’t like it, there just is not an alternative for me that results me in still writing. I either have to give it all at once or I won’t give it at all.
That said, this piece is clearly probably more inclined to non-anarchists, or anarchists looking for a laugh, and it is made up of the most annoying questions I’ve seen in the anarchist subreddit. I’d recommend if you are an anarchist, skipping entirely, though you might enjoy my responses. This is not about having a productive conversation, I don’t see any value in conversing with these people, and this is mainly just a vent post.
It’s the opposite of the Anarchy F.A.Q.
“If some parts of the world become anarchist, why won’t other states just take them over?”
What did you think as you wrote this question? What does it even mean to you? “if some parts of the world become anarchist” what does this mean? Did anarchists successfully overthrow a particular state or erode the ability for the state to enforce itself? What does that mean? There was a peaceful transition of power (lol)? Think about it nice and hard, please.
If a “part of the world” became “anarchist”, my assumption is that anarchists fought to overthrow said state. Simple-as. So do we not think that the same militants that overthrew the state would.. not be capable of fighting against another state? Do you have other people do your thought practices for you?
I don’t think *parts of the world* can *become* anarchist in the sense I personally do not see the pursuit of anarchy as one of territorial ambitions in a weird variation of socialism in one country, I think that tying our struggle for liberation to smaller territorial ambitions is probably damning, especially as we can see what happens to “socialist” countries where they simply integrate into the global capitalist structure or do so halfway while dealing with embargoes.
“How could countries with a lot of organized crime (Salvador) transition to anarchism without gangs taking the power?”
What a weird fucking question dude and its El Salvador. We shouldn’t buy capitalist propaganda about cartels wholesale then build a pretense of a question about it, furthermore, organized “crime” operates as a state-within-a-state and the answer remains the same: There’s no “transition” to anarchy that doesn’t require anarchists being capable of being combative. Precisely, if anarchism is to succeed it will because the willingness of anarchists to be combative in every field imaginable, not of just a physical confrontation, but social and economic.
Organized “crime” is not uniquely evil and we regularly see that the violent “crime” associated with organized “crime” is actually the state itself. They try to play it off as an infiltration of cartels and not that there’s an actual symbiotic relationship with the state and cartels at various levels. What do I mean?
Positioning cartels infiltrating the state creates a moral argument, that the state is inherently good until it is corrupted by an outside force, and these are not relationships that are mutually beneficial, rather the state is exploited. That’s bullshit. Many of these cartels would not have existed if it was not policymakers creating the repressive economic conditions that would allow for them to flourish. What is organized “crime” in a world where crime is recognized as a legal construct and that legal construct no longer exists? In a world where our needs are met, where is the demand for cartels?
Fascism in El Salvador necessitates its existence through the cartels existence. It will never defeat or destroy in the sense it needs a perpetual enemy, real or imagined, to justify its actions to its own. If Bukele could actually destroy cartels, he wouldn’t, because he has to exist to fight, not to succeed, the fascist’s existence is predicted on a perpetual war, not actually winning one.
“Is the state of activism that bad everywhere?”
No idea, but if you’re an anarchist and call yourself an activist, I do not want to be associated with you or whatever you do. Activism is a meaningless label alongside most uses of the word organizer. Ask a union organizer what happens in a place with only activists as the pro-union side and absorb the response because its damning.
“Do anarchists believe in the Non-Aggression Princ-“
Kys.
“Would An Anarchist Society Be Able to Produce Modern Defense Material?”
what in the ever loving fuck, why? Why would an anarchist society WANT to produce modern defense material? Make it make sense!
“How does an anarchist society enforce education?”
We don’t, we just provide the opportunity and reasoning for it, why would we “enforce” “education”?
“How would an anarchist society manage to keep its ideology contained if there was nothing to stop it from devolving rapidly?”
What does that mean?? What does it mean?? Contained?? Devolving??
“Are there any forms of anarchy that do not rely on democratic confederalism?”
Yes, that’s all anarchism? Anyone else telling you different is a crypto-statist or a liberal.
Okay, that’s it for this vent post.