this is post is based on a conversation i had with someone about whether we positively connect our anarchism to democracy or not, because on one hand the democratic ideal, of everyone being in power and making decisions together is pretty neat and anarchist, and that’s also what many people think of when they hear democracy, but then democracies (as in democratic organisations and states) since the greek inception of the word also have almost exclusively been the ruling of a privileged few over the rest, with just enought power (or illusion of power) handed back to us that we wouldnt rebel. as one argument goes: if “democracy” literally means “rulership of the people” then who are the people?
sadly we did not kiss after the conversation :<
but i think we agreed that honestly either is fine ฅ>⩊<ฅ
and now: me rambling about anarchy :3
if you are wondering now “anarchy? isnt that when everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over?? isnt that just destructive chaos?”
then well, that is one definition of anarchy but it is not the anarchy that anarchists desire ;3
anarchy as anarchists understand it is a society organizing itself by anarchist principles. this expesses itself through things such as mutual aide, free association, absence or minimalization of hierarchies and direct action.
basically people getting together in all areas of their lives, to together fulfill their needs, help each other, make decisions among those affected and resolve conflicts together. it’s ofc not always glamourus, no society is, but we believe that it is a better way of living and organizing and we can start building it here and now by just doing those things
important values of anarchy are equality, freedom, solidarity, consent, and uniqueness. those are also shared (or claimed to be shared) by other political movements and organizations, but i would argue that most put other things first such as upholding the current system, maintaining and extending the rulers power and such.
ofc not all anarchists think alike so at the end of the day this is just one perspective out of many
if u are intrigued now and wanna hear more about anarchism, you could check out the anarchist faq or ask in the comments but pws don’t be mean
well oki to answer ur question with a potential solution: when people realise a need for certain infrastructure, they
regarding maintanance, same thing, less steps. those affected by infrustructure will have an intrinsic interest in it’s maintance. other might just help cause it’s a good thing. people will have an eye on enough people being available to work on it, and if there arent anymore, they can ask around and inform everyon of the consequences of the infrastructure going unmaintained. i doubt anything would go unmaintained unless no one needs it, or there simply is not enough capacity to maintain everything due to crisis, so things have to be triaged, which can be deliberated on with those affected.
this is just one potential answer. the real answer is that people will figure it out as they go. honestly people already figured it out, as there are already anarchist infrastructure projects today.
you brought up the example situation of who would clear the roads during a snowstorm and well if clear roads during snowstorms are generally deemed important and people can be convinced to do it. hell i would do it if i received the necessary training and a decent explanation for why it’s important. why should it go unmaintained if people need it? it’s like asking who will wash my dishes. well i will cause yknow i need clean dishes. threat of homelessness and starvation should not be needed to motivate people to do basic necessities. i think the ideas that it would is a result of the extreme alienation we experience under capitalism, where the reason to do anything that is not pure pleasure has become coercion.
fuck you if you now just go and make some snarky remarks and shit on my answer
This answer only makes sense if you are completely detached from reality.
Maintaining any kind of infrastructure long-term is a high-skill task that requires lifetimes of study and experience (e.g. healthcare, waste disposal, railways, electrical service, etc). People can’t just decide to help out with it one day and then fuck off next week. The overwhelming majority of people who depend on the infrastructure won’t have the slightest knowledge about how it works, how to keep it working, or how to fix it when it breaks, and they won’t have 20 years to get a degree and a professional certification in the field.
Long-term projects require long-term planning and long-term investement, which means management (e.g. authority figures) and public funding (taxes). There is no way around this requirement.
most of what you say does not have to be at all in contradiction with what i said :3
people can help long term with projects that they don’t personally rely.
right now most people who rely on infrastructure might not be involved in it’s maintanance, but that is not needed as long as there are enough people maintaining it and that can also change. i think capitalism alienates us from the things we rely on, outsourcing all work. i’d argue that typically the infrustructure maintance in settlements is done by the people who live there though.
just because someone is not knowledgeable enough on a type of work, to help with it, does not mean they can’t pitch a project, which can then be developed by those who have the skill.
i know there are many people who are happy to do the same work for their whole life and get really good at it, but if people should ever not be in for the joy of it, there is still necassity and a solidarity to drive them.
regarding it needing long term planning and investment: yeah sure but management does not need to be authority, it can simple be a position someone is delegated into, like any other work. it does not require command and control. taxes are also not the only way to get public funding. everything is publically funded in economy that produces and distributes based on need and collective deliberation.
it seems to me that you are so caught up in how things are done right now, in authoritarian systems, that you make the mistake to assume that it is the only way they could possibly ever be done.
as intwesting as it is to think about and respond to your arguments and as much as i can emphasize with how you might have gotten to certain positions, it is kinda draining to argue, especially since you seem kinda hostile. i think i will disengage from this thread and not respond to any further questions or allegations.
Now how do you convince people to go along with that?