The lack of organizational structure for such militias formed by the anarchists and lack of authority mean though that a conspiracy to destroy the anarchist society will always be infinitely many steps ahead of the response of said society.

Furthermore, what stops the ~30% of people (whether nazi Germany or DJT, that’s usually the percentage of votes recieved for right wing radicals) that will almost definitely not be interested in keeping the anarchist society functioning from attaining weapons and having their way? Even ignoring the historic context, tribalism seems baked into the human existence, how is that nullified?

Further, people will always be fearful, so it’s great to say “their fellow anarchists would take up arms” but how many are truly willing to do that? Revolutions would be much more common if they were.

That’s why I think there’s significant cultural/educational changes needed before such a society (or something similar) could be attained.

I think it works great on a local level in small communities, but we have a globalized world, for better or worse, and have greatly outgrown the small communities in which such a philosophy would be most effective imo.

Also I totally misinterpreted your joke

Every status quo is enforced by violence. That’s kinda why we pursue utopian ideals is to minimize said violence. Shoot for the moon, land among the stars kinda thing.

An actual anarchist revolution would just lead to more violence tho without significant changes to our culture. Hatred, tribalism, and fear are all innate to humans. The question is how we overcome those base feelings in order to form a better society.

Anybody can give you a better society than the one that exists. It’s exceedingly easy. The trick is to make it actually work.

After it happens, and there are no hierarchies or authorities, what stops men with guns from taking what they want?

I don’t appreciate your pedantics about my use of hyperbolic verbiage in order to bring an element of humor to my argument.

Also good job dodging the question.

It really isn’t. There’s reasons that we’ve created laws and it’s because the vast majority can’t be expected to do the right thing just because it’s the right thing and this isn’t a one time thing, this is the entirety of history. I’m not “on the side of the men with guns” just for pointing out the obvious issue with the utopia, just as I’m not a neo-liberal capitalist for pointing out the inherent issues with the communist utopia or a dirty commie for pointing out the obvious issued with a capitalist utopia.

As it turns out, when you just talk about something and don’t actually encounter the hardships of reality, all the ideas are amazing and fantastic lol. In an anarchic society you would be killed, enslaved, or raped. Human society hasn’t come to the point yet where we could transition to such an idea without those problems.

Yes, but in the anarchic society, what stops men with guns from taking what they want?

You understand that you can still have anarchy without collectivism right? It’s just called lawlessness, and when that happens, men with guns take what they want. Literally just look at any period of political instability in pretty much any country for just about all of history. What stops our current society from devolving into that if anarchic revolution were to occur?

Also, I’m not reading the book you linked. If there’s relevant information, feel free to point out which paragraph/section.

I mean if your definition of collectivism is men with guns taking what they want then yeah that sounds likely. I’m also a collective anarchist, but it’s important to note how far we must come as a species before we can actually engage meaningfully in such a philosophy, otherwise it will just regress on progress made in other spheres. Bolstering of education is a good step in this process, but also moral and philosophical teachings.

Collective anarchism, along with all utopias, is unachievable, but a system incorporating its tenets is certainly possible, I just question whether it would devolve into men with guns taking what they want.

That’s called collective anarchism. Anarchism is what the name implies… and most lemmy users wouldn’t last especially long lmao

The issue with democracy is that it inherently doesn’t protect minority rights.

That was the initial intention of the US political system. Clearly, it hasn’t worked out too well because of things like gerrymandering, but that doesn’t mean you just go back to the system that clearly has errors.