deleted by creator

I guess there is an idea that some things need to be centrally planned/governed and it is unrealistic/idealistic to think that Anarchism can work effectively in some cases.

E.g. Armies are generally very strict hierarchies for a reason. Power and information are centralized. If power and information are decentralized then it is harder plan and execute plans.

I think that centralized societies (or elements in society) can more easily attack/defend themselves so Anarchist societies/elements are usually constrained somehow, either constrained to a small geographic area or to certain aspects of society (e.g. the internet/open source software).

Idealism is a philosophical concept, and it’s with great success that the bourgeoisie makes you think idealism is simply having ideas (or having ideas that can’t be achieved) and that materialism, or being materialistic, is about wanting to accumulate stuff.

Idealism and materialism answer philosophy’s fundamental question: what is reality? Idealists think that reality is subjective, because if you are colorblind you will see tree leaves in orange when they are green to a non-colorblind person. Yet this doesn’t change the fact that the tree leaves are green, no matter your perception. We used to believe that the sun was a yellowish disc in the sky with rays sticking out of it. Then we explored space and found out the sun is not a disc, it is not yellow, and it doesn’t actually emit rays.

So we understand that it’s not ideas or what you think that creates reality, but what is actually there. Reality exists whether you experience it or not. And it’s happened throughout history that we thought something was true and it turned out it wasn’t, but that still doesn’t make it true. We thought volcano eruptions were the result of spirits being angry but it turns out it’s a physics reaction – that doesn’t mean it was true back in the day because people thought it was true and didn’t possess the knowledge to know the physics of volcanoes. The mechanism was still the exact same.

Today idealism remains the dominant thought, because the liberals who theorized capitalism (in the Enlightenment mostly) were idealists. In school you will be taught about Kant or maybe Berkley, who were huge idealists, and that’s about it. Nothing on materialism, which is ultimately better than idealism in all aspects and should be taught to children – but that would undermine capitalism, so we can understand why it’s not in the program.

If you’re interested in the topic I can recommend Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy which is a very accessible book teaching idealism, materialism, and dialectical materialism.

Personally, as an ML, when I say anarchists are idealists I don’t mean this as an insult but as an observation – granted it’s not a compliment. Perhaps your experiences will be different but I have met my share of anarchists who think that you can just convince everyone that anarchism is better once they see coops in action (or more idealist yet, that we can change their ideas talking about it), and that they will convert to it. This isn’t really different from libs telling foreigners in imperialised countries that if we just gave them democracy they would see how good it is and never want to go back. It supposes that if you change people’s ideas, you will change their reality. In truth, and we have historical evidence (all of history really), you change people’s ideas when you change their material conditions. That is why we say you cannot reform capitalism, because it remains capitalism at the end of the day.

I really don’t understand why MLs think that would happen when it hasn’t happened at all in history.

It has, but never fully. For example, we used to have ministries for colonial affairs, and we don’t any more. When there is no point in having the state provide a service (or oppress people, when these people no longer exist), then it will eventually wither away. This process will eventually wither away the whole state.

Remember that the state is a tool of oppression of one class over another. It seeks to reconcile the class struggle but that is impossible, as there can be no reconciliation between the bourgeois and the proletariat (why would I want to be exploited, and why would the bourgeoisie not want to exploit me?). Once there is no more class to oppress, why is there the need for a state? There will be services of course, such as healthcare, but there would be no state, there wouldn’t be this tool of oppression.

This was one of my main takeaways after reading Lenin’s State and Revolution.

There’s a lot of bloviating, and throwing around of terms like ‘petite-bourgeois philistines’. But not a lot of substance when it comes to the details of why exactly we need a transitional state, and the particulars of how the withering away will begin.

He talks about the need for power to be in the hands of the armed workers - but it seems to be just talk. There’s also a lot naivety in the idea of having a minimal government who are paid a small sum - why do we need these people? And knowing what we know about the nature of capital won’t these people and positions become corrupted? It’s the state, and capital itself we’re trying to do away with - not a change to a more benevolent group of capitalists who somehow know what’s best for all of us.

It does all come off as very fanciful, idealistic, and wrapped up in the myth that humans are inherently greedy and stupid and in need of a patriarchal figure to guide them.

In comparison I find a lot of anarchist writing more visionary, but also more pragmatic and backed up by sound reasoning.

because they have run out of good ideas and have given up?

Removed by mod

it’s not worth taking nazi insults seriously. they’re going to insult you for anything you are, especially if you are not a white, racist, cishet, god fearing, protestant. they have such a limited scope and limited view of life, the world, and the universe they can’t be taken seriously, they’re violent morons and that’s how they like it